Does this make sense?

When we consider the boundary as a collective entity, it becomes apparent that it not only divides, but also unifies the information contained within it. This is, contrary to popular belief, an idea which has frequented the literature sparingly. Therefore, not only can the boundary be considered a unifying, collective and inclusive agent, but it can also, and perhaps more realistically, be considered a structure borne out to be falsified under the argument of incredulity. Indeed, this leaves one contemplating the very ideals and beliefs underpinning the legitimacy of the boundary as a 'common area of good', which in recent times, particularly after the philosophical revolution, has been redefined to also include 'common areas of bad'. Although seemingly contradictory, this new definition can be seen to justify that to which it had been opposed. This, ultimately, introduces a new era of understanding, one fashioned into existence to include, not purely a orthodox ideology, but an increasingly heterodox, and in many respects accurate, portrayal of the machinations and inventions of the entity itself.

Doe these sentences make sense? Can they be written any better?

Thanks.