Date: Dec 19, 2012 8:28 PM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social<br> engineering'?

> On Dec 19, 2012, at 8:01 AM, GS Chandy
> <> wrote:

> > All of the above seems to be simple enough
> logically for anyone to understand who has been able
> to understand the logic of simple arithmetic,
> algebra, and the like.
> Well, it didn't work in India, did it? It didn't work
> in Chicago. It didn't work in DC. That tells me that
> it isn't simple. What would be your next step in
> India? I mean, since the gun ban didn't work.
> Bob Hansen

You are certainly correct in your contention that "it isn't simple". I never claimed it was: after all, we're trying to deal with complex systems. See below to understand what are 'my next steps' in India (and in the US - and elsewhere - for that matter).

i) See the attachments to my post at There is plenty of work to do in India to enable people to understand how complex societal issues may be effectively tackled. There is just as much work to do in the USA (much of it probably of a rather different kind from my work in India).

ii) What I generally do (as you may have happened to notice) is to take all possible steps I can from my position of limited resources to ensure that stakeholders begin to understand just what is needed to tackle complex societal issues. See those attachments to the message linked above.

- -- There are stakeholders who will want to be part of the solution: I approach them to demonstrate practical means to ensure effective design of complex systems, of how they could implement effective action within their own systems. See the above-noted attachments: these are part (though only a part) of the solution.

- -- There are also stakeholders who are part of the problem. To begin with, these are far more numerous than the stakeholders who may be part of the solution.

[In fact, to begin with, there was only one stakeholder - myself - in the class I needed to approach! Now there are several hundred *who I know* are solidly in this class; and at least a score or more of them have developed sufficient expertise to be able confidently to work independently from me on issues of interest to them. There are actually millions on millions of them, but I don't *solidly know* that they ARE in this class].

Some (not all) of these who are 'part of the problem' are constitutionally incapable of being part of the solution. Some of these stakeholders who are ineluctably incapable of being part of the solution become systematic liars to try to sustain their untenable positions. I try to ensure that they are unable to create further problems: sometimes I'm successful; sometimes not. If they do manage to create further problems, I try to resolve those.

See the above-noted attachments: those are part (though only part) of the solution.

All of the above is work enough for a couple of lifetimes.

NB: When I started, I had not realized just how complex and difficult a Mission I had taken up ("To develop OPMS and to propagate it as a practical means to effective problem solving in complex systems, in India and abroad").

I must render my heartfelt thanks to you for demonstrating to me a sizable number of dimensions of my Mission; you have been quite often responsible for changes that may have been made from time to time in those documents that I attach from time to time to my messages. I observe: it's working, though nowhere near as swiftly or as well as I would desire.

("Still Shoveling Away!")