All these three areas are supposed to have boundaries, which also can be investigated. The borders de facto introduce the time element and have therefore imaginary character.
It can easily be understood that any kind of “genuine” development meaning inclusion of development beyond evolution is only possible with permeable borders. Trump’s Mexican wall like the Berlin wall of Khrushchev and Ulbricht are evident examples that a completely closed border just does “not work” in all parts of nature. Especially life is concerned meaning the impossibility of development of new forms involving break of paradigma (T.S.Kuhn).
Nature practically does not have completely tight borders. See seemingly tight enclosures of snails or turtles – all have not completely enclosing tight borders, while skin has semi-permeable pores. But philosophy often maintains the idea of closed systems for rational reasons. If however the assumption of closed systems in practice is not fulfilled, this hints at the likely or even well known fact that the assumption of rationality is not given.
The same follows from the possibility of cognition without rationality. Fields of influence cannot be rationally analyzed because of the principle of uncertainty (W. Heisenberg) or, expressed in terms of mathematical philosophy, because of fuzziness (L.A.Zadeh). Processing of life in the sense of creation by sexuality can also not be considered to be purely rational, although it certainly has rational influences. The consequence must be that in complex systems there generally exists something behind the border which can back-feed and thereby influence development.
This consideration refers also to philosophy as a system. There has to exist philosophy outside of rational philosophy considered by philosophy including irrational elements, which can be called synthetical philosophy. We have to ask what is the philosophy considered and what will be the additional philosophy. The still traditional philosophy commonly used at the start is analytical philosophy which, for sure, is not wrong. The philosophy outside will be created by or concern creativity and has thus synthetical properties meaning something not included in analysis, and is therefore to be considered as an extension of analytical philosophy. The same way as we can assume metaphilosophy of analytical philosophy we can also postulate metaphilosophy of synthetical philosophy. Between both of them there must exist a weak interaction making both of them almost but not completely independent.
Synthetical philosophy can be seen as additional and not in contrast to before existing analytical philosophy but rather as an enlargement with correcting properties just called an extension similar to the term used in computer programs.
This synthetical philosophy could be especially useful in politics taking into account e.g. love relations or marriage.. Imagine relationships between Netanyahu and a Palestinian princess or between Xi Jinping and Agnes Chow. The big problems essentially would be solved. Just confronting rational thinking with irrationally influenced tactics cannot lead to success. Compromise more or less equivalent to the “modern” middle way proposed in earlier writings is as mandatory as taking into account of uncertainty and/or fuzziness..