As bakunin points out; systems, by the very nature of creating one (a system) are imperfect. A system creates a boundary around a set of knowledge; a system creates a boundary around acceptance and understanding; a system creates a set of rules and policies and definitions and semantic understanding; a system creates a set of control mechanisms (or a need for such controls); and the list goes on and on about the causality of systems.

In other words, when we take the sum total of human knowledge and experience, and decide to take a subset, partition it (draw a line around it), label it, define it, advocate it, and operate within the system boundaries; we limit knowledge; this is true of all systems. There are no perfect systems, of course, because all things, especially systems, have the qualities of duality (i.e. positive and negative; good and evil; creation and destruction; beautiful and ugly).

This also means that to enter into, or accept and strongly advocate, a system; anti-knowledge is created, because there are systems and there are "anti-systems". What remains is change, evolution, revolution (breaking rigid systems), adaptation; but most systems, by definition, are resistant to anything that is not defined by the system boundary (or boundaries).

I do realize that this reply could seem somewhat abstract; and my closing thoughts are that too many of us discuss and operate within system boundaries without thinking about system theory and understanding the inherent limitations and boundaries of all systems; and also the fact that all systems, by the very nature of system designs, tend to create "anti-systems".