> we also should discuss the boundaries required for its concept to make any sense. I feel that this understanding gets sometimes lost, and its naivety gets

> we also should discuss the boundaries required for its concept to make any sense. I feel that this understanding gets sometimes lost, and its naivety gets regretfully relabeled as "innovation". Good observation. It gets blamed on globalism, liberalism, post-modernism, capitalism, and a bunch of other things, but somehow we got the wrong idea that all boundaries are bad. Boundaries must be broken! I think that came from the language of science and technology. We made "Smashing barriers!" a synonym for progress. But it is a childish, iconoclastic and directionless notion of "progress", for its own sake. Psychologically at least, a lack of boundaries is a kind of madness, it's disinhibited, intrusive, lacking self-control - and to the extent there's a political theory of mind it leads to wars and internal unrest. We raised "connectedness" to supernatural hoodoo, but connectedness for it's own sake is a catastrophe to systems. It violates the principles of modularity, decoupling and appropriate cohesion.