Further my post (dt. Jun 7, 2014 5:32 PM, http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9480994) summing up my 'informally structured' opinion of the articles by Liping Ma* and Mark Saul** that had kindly been brought to our attention by Professor Lou Talman, I do believe Robert Hansen will have something like the following to say:
SHOW US THE MODELS YOU'VE MADE INSTEAD OF JUST GASSING ABOUT THEM! (Or, should I more correctly say, this is what he would have said if he had not seen this post [assuming of course it is passed in the first place by our esteemed Moderator]).
My response to any such command or demand from Robert Hansen (even if he were to make it as an ever-so-polite request) is, as always:
"You may regard yourself, Mr Hansen, as one of the 'MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE!' - but you're not my MASTER. I shall not be showing you any model at your demand. If, however, you can convince me that you have with reasonable care read through the documentation attached to my post heading the thread 'Democracy: how to achieve it?' (http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536), I shall be happy to guide you to making a convincing model (or many convincing models) for yourself".
And to everyone who wishes to see these models, I have the following to say:
All such models - Interpretive Structural Models (ISMs) as well as Field Representations (FRs) - are 'graphical representations' of the 'mental models' of the person(s) who constructed them.
Showing a model made by me, GSC, or by any individual or group in a workshop facilitated by me would demand that I provide a pretty sizable amount of explanation alongside the model in order to make it reasonably comprehensible.
As I'm not Marcel Proust, I really am not up to going into any such vast "Remembrance of Things Past".
In the case of the organisational workshops conducted for groups from various organisations, we had always provided quite detailed explanatory Reports along with the models that the groups had developed at their workshops - but all such Reports are quite confidential in nature, and, besides, those Reports would refer to specific discussions that went on during those Workshops, which in general would make sense only to those specific groups.
The ONLY effective and convincing way I can think of would be for the 'inquirer' to construct his/her own models on any issue or Mission of current interest to him or her or them (in case the inquirer is a group) - and I shall be most happy to demonstrate how this may be done, step by clear step, providing brief explanations and interpretations alongside the construction of the models. This process would also demonstrate:
- -- the validity of Warfield's modeling tools,
- -- the validity of Warfield's whole 'approach to systems science';
- -- the invalidity of the 'conventional approaches to systems';
- -- the validity of the OPMS as a simple and practical development of what I call "Warfield's way to understand complex systems of any kind".