I meant to put this thought up quite some time back but could/did not. Of course it hurt that my syllogism was based on a fact proven wrong, but what mattered more was that I had not only to admit my mistake but also give up my theory. You may not agree but I try to live by that philosophy, but I do believe that “Nobody stands taller than the one willing to stand corrected”. I am quite often willing to look at the parts that I may have ignored in order to stand corrected, naturally after having a thorough analysis of my critic of course. It does take time to change your perspective and get over your ego, I am able to do it in the end. Not stretching the jibber-jabber further am locking up the jabberwocky and stating what I intended to state.
Sometime back I came across a friend’s blog and replied to it by means of my own one.
Upon my blog, another friend of mine (Mr. Kaustav Nandy), replied to me vide a mail. The relevant extract from his comment was this:
Picking your point on oasis, I did a little google and came up with the following:
"Oases are formed from underground rivers or aquifers such as an artesian aquifer, where water can reach the surface naturally by pressure or by man made wells. Occasional brief thunderstorms provide subterranean water to sustain natural oases, such as the Tuat. Substrata of impermeable rock and stone can trap water and retain it in pockets, or on long faulting subsurface ridges or volcanic dikes water can collect and percolate to the surface. Any incidence of water is then used by migrating birds who also pass seeds with their droppings which will grow at the water's edge forming an oasis.".....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis
My idea here is not exactly to contest your example, but while going through the above facts, it just hit my mind, that probably a better example could be the sandstone! (refer impermeable rock and stone above).
According to me, learning the art of "springing up the oasis" or "letting go" are equally important. Off course it sounds like a smart diplomat trying to play around with two of his accomplices and juggling the balance between. But probably some recent studies / articles I gone through and trainings I attended made me think like this. What I currently have found is, there is no single formula or theorem that befits all situations. You actually need to be the master juggler who shows the "situational" wisdom to spring up the oasis or let it go depending on the situation!!!!
Fair point Kaustav. I dare say that I might even have been wrong in registering what I thought about how an oasis is formed & hence stand corrected. I have tried to find the right syllogism and now have finally grappled the one I think is logically befitting. For the record I am also attaching the link which motivated me to develop the syllogism:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can_flash_floods_occur_in_desert_regions
Why can flash floods occur in desert regions?
Rains in the desert are frequently sudden heavy deluges caused by summer thunderstorms. Desert soil is thin and dry and cannot absorb a sudden rainstorm and there are few plants to absorb water. The rain rushes down hillsides and mountains and overflows arroyos, flowing into roads and homes in its path. They can occur suddenly and areas far from the actual storm can be flooded.
In desert, at times the sand is so tightly packed that water cannot permeate the top layer. To that extent I stand by my hypothesis of previous case. I agree that it is a landscape that has evolved over years of cyclical action of no-trees-hence-no-rain-hence-no-trees-hence-no-rain-hence-no… but let us analyze things from a point in time. In such an instant if there is a little bit of rain, perhaps the desert may hold it for a while, perhaps maybe not, I don’t know. But in case the downpour continues, the water having nowhere to go flows away and almost instantaneously gathers the form of a flash flood. (No, I haven’t been watching too much of Man Vs. Wild of late). It takes down everything that is in its path and destroys the landscape and devastates the environment.
On the contrary, in a rainforest, a much higher amount of rain gets absorbed into the soil because the soil is permeable. In turn it leads to a bounty known as a rainforest, which is akin to none other in the world. It happens primarily because the soil particles, unlike sand in desert, aren’t bound to each other. Thus seeps in the water; thus the seeds can germinate; thus the trees can grow; thus all forms of life can flourish. There have been instances in Brazil where the rainforest is cut down for agriculture & the landscape has turned barren, eventually becoming a prelude to a possible future desert. Agreed that it is us humans to blame for it, but the point remains something else. Had the soil not been permissive, it wouldn’t have held water. Had the soil not been permissive, it wouldn’t have allowed seeds to germinate. Had the soil not been permissive, it wouldn’t have allowed trees to spread its roots in itself. The particles of soil are permissive because they stick to one another, but if something tries to come in between, they don’t resist & mingle with the intruders. I might even mention that it is these very trees that later prevent erosion & maintain the particles of soil in its own place instead of letting the downpours pull them away from each other.
Looking at this from a philosophical perspective, this prevention of soil erosion in a rainforest stems from the assurance of soil particles that just because two particles of soil aren’t attached to each other, it doesn’t mean they’re not together. Behold, in the long run maybe those whom we thought were intruders might help us keep our near & dear ones with us! Whereas in the desert, a gentle downpour can separate the grains of sand like… well… grains of sand! The choice is ours, what particles do we want to be: the cold-fused sands that makes the desert & at times causes flashfloods bringing devastation everywhere, or the soil particles that forms life giving rainforests?
