INTERFACE SYSTEMS

"WATERING-HOLE" STRATEGIES

If a precondition is 'poisoned' with some specific property of
advantageousness, then it can be seen that the strategy, if there
is a strategy, that evolves from that application, expresses itself
in terms of the initial conditions of the 'watering-hole', and all the
real-life conditions that expand from that initial 'seeding'.

So, in the second place, the limit is the presence of any type of
anti-poison or incapacitation of the application, and the utility of
the application is its adoption by other, perhaps wildly different
watering-hole equivalencies. Some of these secondary elements
may follow a pattern similar to the original, and either
communicate or fail to communicate the 'poison'. The poison then
dissipates, or becomes incorporated in the structure of the 'wells'.

However, what happens when the source of the 'poison' was very
distant, and aimed to gain advantages by the poison? What is its
strategy to recover the poison in an altered form?

One strategy might be to motivate the first 'well' to evolve in
some way, and then find a comfortable position amongst the
resulting much larger evolutions. This seemingly would require
already being evolved. Another strategy would be to create a
hard-to-understand 'poison' and adapt gradually to the resulting
drama and education.

In general, the strategy would be to anticipate the effect of the
'poison' and find assurance that the effect was advantageous.


       
BACK TO SYSTEMS