Well, I had something else to do, but … the Force is strong here, and we Slackers are easily pulled in.

I am a bit troubled by the implication that any group can be totally open and all-inclusive as this violates my definition of a functioning, actionable group. Thinking all-inclusively leads me to a kind of holy holism that is pleasant to contemplate and that, when I do manage to touch it, genuinely reinvigorates my spirit and restores my faith in a basically friendly and supportive universe, so I in no way dismiss it.

Still, that is a transcendent notion, and day-to-day, I’m mostly concerned with the immanent. From what I see of the Universe, most things have a tendency to aggregate into working structures from which new capabilities and characteristics emerge. This aggregation creates boundaries which both exclude, thus maintaining the integrity of the functioning group, AND include, thus enabling exchanges of energy, matter, information, and organization with the environment. These boundaries must both exclude and include, and these boundaries work across all known scales from subatomic strings up to galaxy clusters and maybe clusters of universes (we humans and our groups are somewhere in the middle).

Consider carbon. Like most atoms, it’s a collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons (old school physics, I know, but work with me here). Now what would happen if a carbon atom was totally open and all-inclusive. Well, it wouldn’t be carbon, and we wouldn’t have graphite on the one hand, or diamonds on the other, or living creatures on the other (really—work with me here).

Of course, a functioning unit of carbon is more simple, perhaps, than a functioning social unit such as a MOOC, but to my mind, boundaries are necessary at both scales to create workable entities. Because carbon is higher up the periodic table it seems to have more potential for combinations and expressions (both graphite which is soft and opaque and diamond which is hard and transparent are forms of carbon) than do hydrogen and helium. Likewise, social units work at more complex scales with far more potential for combinations and expressions. Like most of us here, I favor more combinations and expressions, but I am not in favor of being an all-inclusive resort (nor are those resorts—they really don’t want any of the native poor on the property). Becoming a functioning entity requires boundaries with the necessary functions of inclusion, exclusion, and exchange. I don’t know how to function in the world without boundaries, though I still value—greatly value—contact with the transcendent that for beautiful moments seems to remove all boundaries.

That being said, I resist rigid, absolute boundaries, especially rigid social boundaries. For instance, the US is seriously considering an absolute boundary (The Wall) to protect its southern borders, an idea that I totally reject. The integrity of any social group (a nation, for instance) depends as much on inclusion and exchange as it does on exclusion. Boundaries must be flexible and malleable for an entity to sustain life. But they must also exclude some things. This is the tricky part, especially among social groups which move beyond the performance of boundaries among atoms to include competence and intention among social groups.

Well … back to my business.