Geotrauma. Note Quote

What could be the opinion on jettisoning ‘alienation’ in both the Marxist and Freudian senses, and thereby replacing it with infusing creativity in the very notions of sublimation and commodity-fetishism? I have come to think of its necessity as substituting the revolutionary agency’s need-to-be-present, since, the latter (agency) is synthetically artificial. Moreover, ‘alienation’ would result in a loss of essential authenticity, thus furthering traumatic residues. The question of traumatic residues would not arise, if everything is a priori synthetic.

geotrauma-and-vocalities-jpeg

Traumatic is a notion taken from Daniel Barker’s geocosmic account of trauma. This was outlined in Reza Negarestani’s ‘A veritable earth? An Afterthought in Territopic Materialism’, which is,

A belated critical interposition between Freud’s and Ferenczi’s theories of trauma and Kant’s and Schelling’s accounts of radical evil, this moves toward a geocosmic account of trauma that allows for renegotiation of materialism in the wake of tensive topologies (traumas) and contingent depths (freedom at cosmic scales). When topology of traumatic tensions is extended from the realms of the organic nervous system and the social structure (polis, nation state, etc.) to cosmic expanses, the extensity of space simultaneously deprives matter of its allegedly autonomous privileges and mobilizes it through a productive topology of tension where such an act of dispossession itself takes a new form of materialist expression whose binding entails a ceaseless renegotiation of the axiomatic verities of Man, the Earth and Matter. This cosmically determined yet traumatically or tensively posited renegotiation of verities imparts a fundamentally territopic (rather than terroristic) quality to a conception of matter that is not governed by its own autonomy, hyletic creativities and intensive differences – that is a conception of matter disenthralled by radical evil or the will qua freedom of depths.

DCB considers Trauma is a body. Ultimately, at its pole of maximum disequilibrium, it’s an iron thing. Call it Cthelll: the interior third of terrestrial mass, semifluid metallic ocean, megamolecule, and pressure-cooker beyond imagination. It’s hotter than the surface off the sun down there, three thousand clicks below the crust, and all that thermic energy is sheer impersonal nonsubjective memory of the outside, running the plate-tectonic machinery of the planet via the conductive and convective dynamics of silicate magma flux, bathing the whole system in electomagnetic fields as it tidally pulses to the orbit of the moon. Cthelll is the terrestrial inner nightmare, nocturnal ocean, Xanadu: the anorganic metal-body trauma-howl of the earth, cross- hatched by intensities, traversed by thermic waves and currents, deranged particles, ionic strippings and gluttings, gravitational deep-sensitivities transduced into nonlocal electromesh, and feeding vulcanism … that’s why plutonic science slides continuously into schizophrenic delirium. Fast forward seismology and you hear the earth scream. Geotrauma is an ongoing process, whose tension is continually expressed: partially frozen in biological organization. For instance, the peculiarly locked-up lifeforms we tend to see as typical, those more-or-less obedient to darwinian selection mechanics are less than six hundred million years old. They began with the planetary oxygenization crisis, triggered by the saturation of crustal iron, followed by mass oxygen-poisoning of the prokaryotic biosystem and the emergence of a eukaryotic regime. Eukaryotic cells are highly suppressive. They implement a nuclear command-control model based on genomic ROM, affined to meiosis-mitosis diplocapture, hierarchical organization, and multicellular specialization. Even the distinction between ontogeny and phylogeny, distinct time-orders of the individual and the species makes little sense without eukaryotic nuclear read-only programming and immunological identity. Evolutionism presupposes specific geotraumatic outcomes.

Project Finance and CSOs

Disclaimer: There are many concerns that CSOs have in regard to finances and fundings of projects. The following has not covered them either due to my ignorance, or reasons thereof.

Here, I have laid stress on Project Finance, since for me this is where its differentiation with other vehicles of finance (a comparison is given towards the end of this note) could be outlined. Moreover, Project Finance is now looked upon as the most viable form of financing that there is with highly mitigated levels of risks, at least, according to the financial worldlings! What follows is a writeup, where potential points could be identified and the whole exercise could start with lines of difficulties and challenges/needs/necessities (in short applied/application) delineated. Additionally, a study on Project Finance leads inherently to a study on PPPs, another preferred mode in use in India at present. CSOs need to keep in mind that one of the fundamental trade-offs for PPP designing is to strike a right balance between risks allocations between the public and private sector, risk allocation within the private sector and cost of funding for the PPP company. This, for CSOs is a point of conflict with specially designed SPVs out there to bend inclinations due to lack of disclosure clauses that define Project Finance in the first place.

A project is characterized by major productive capital investment (mining, agriculture and forests, infrastructure, power generation and irrigation, telecommunication services). Now, there are some asymmetric downside risks associated with a project in addition to the usual symmetric and binary ones. These asymmetric risks are environmental risks and a possibility of creeping expropriation (due to the project). Demand, price; input/supply are symmetric risks in nature, while technological glitch and regulatory fluctuations are binary risks. All that a project is on the lookout for is a customized capital structure, and governance to minimize cash inflow/outflow volatility.

Project finance aims to precisely do that. It involves a corporate sponsor investing through a non-recourse debt. It is characterized by cash flows, high debt leading to a need for additional support, bank guarantees, and letters of credit to cover greater risks during construction, implementation (commissioning as the context maybe), and at times sustainability. Now funding is routed through various sources, viz. export credits, development funds, specialized assets financing, conventional debt and equity finance. This is archetypal of how the corporate financial structure operates as far as managing risks is concerned from the point of view of future inflow of funds.

It has a high concentration of equity and debt ownership, with up to three equity sponsors, syndicate of banks and financial institutions to provide for credit. Moreover, there is an extremely high level of debt with the balance of capital provided by the sponsors in the form of equity, while importantly, the debt is non-recourse to the sponsors.

A typical BOT in Project Finance is shown below,

 

Inline images 1

 

Another way of looking at Project Finance, with a Special Purpose Vehicle at the center of things is shown below,

The concession authority is the government, and grants a concession to the SPV, a license granting it exclusive ownership of a facility, which, once the term for the license is over is transferred back to the government, or any other public authority. The concession forms the contract between the government and SPV and goes under the name of project agreement.

The attractiveness of project finance is the ability to fund projects off balance sheet with limited or no recourse to equity investors i.e. if a project fails, the project lenders recourse is to ownership of actual project and they are unable to pursue the equity investors for debt. For this reason lenders focus on the project cash-flow as this the main sources for repaying project debt. The shareholders will invest in the SPV with a focus to minimize their equity contributions, since equity commands a higher rate of return, and thus is a more risky affair compared with a conventional commercial bank debt. Whereas, the bank lenders will always seek a comfortable level of equity from shareholders of SPV to ensure that the project sponsors are seriously committed to the project and have a vested interest in seeing the project succeed.

THIS COULD BE ACTED UPON, WITH A SPECIFIC CASE STUDY THAT UNDERLINES THE KNOWLEDGE-BASE REQUISITE FOR ANY UNDERSTANDING OF FINANCIALS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT. KNOWLEDGE BASE COULD ENCOMPASS: issues for the host government/legislative provisions, public/private infrastructure partnerships, public/private financial structures, credit requirement of lenders, and analytical techniques to measure the feasibility of the project. In case of Project Finance, the financier principally looks to the assets and revenue of the project in order to secure and service the loan. In contrast to an ordinary borrowing situation, in a project financing the financier usually has little or no recourse to the non-project assets of the borrower or the sponsors of the project. In this situation, the credit risk associated with the borrower is not as important as in an ordinary loan transaction; what is most important is the identification, analysis, allocation and management of every risk associated with the project.

Screen Shot 2016-12-22 at 9.49.02 AM.png

Thereafter a look at the disadvantages of Project Finance tells;

1. Project Finance mandates greater disclosure of information on deals and contracts, which happen to be proprietary in nature.

2. Extensive contracting restricts management decision-making, by looping it into complexities, where decisions making nodes are difficult to make.

3. Project debt is more expensive.

 

Generating a Computing Language….unfinished from undergrad days!!!

It is now an established fact that in the revolutionary globe of computer industry spanning the terrestrial nook and corner, Indians have emerged as one of the leading proponents of software profession and are now being looked up with respect almost in the sense of getting the technological deification. But most of this apotheosis is confined to the software tools that are heavily in use. But the question arises as to why can’t we churn out research scholars working towards the generation of languages and making a mark in this stream also. Is it that the resources are inadequate/ or there is a twist in the story altogether. Majority of the technical students in the sophomore year decide that there has to be a career which would secure their cause financially and to an extent psychologically ( a different picture and hence leave it untouched ). Research in software isn’t expedient as compared with how a person uses it otherwise. Idiosyncrasies turn up and people think that working towards a new development is onerous. ‘ipso facto’, we have resources which are sine qua non in nature, but at face value the two factors which have emerged as dissuading ones are lack of influx of funds, which in turn don’t pay heavily to a scholar endeavoring this line of action and secondly the brain drain that this country is suffering from is sucking the nutrition from the vast pool of talent in our motherland.

I won’t astray anymore but now acculturate to a very language of what is really happening at the very foundation of the software tool that one is using. Let us take the view that the tool is general and anybody using any software language or package is open to this grammar.

Whatever follows here is very succinct in nature :

The basic characteristic or eligibility is accepting the power of discrete mathematics as the new mother tongue.

A Programming language is notational in existence and gives a precise description of computer programs and algorithms. They form an artificial set which are defining the semantics and syntaxes in a strict manner as compared with the natural languages.

SET : It forms a collection of distinct objects of any sort and the objects being called the elements and these can occur at most once, order of appearance merely irrelevant.

If x is an element of Set S, then notationally:

x Є S and

x ≠ S ( read as x doesn’t belong to S )

The set theory forms the basis of functions, relations and algebraic structures.

LOGIC : A common term but badly misunderstood by many. It’s the science of reasoning, inference and ratiocinating. Two common systems are:

                                                                          Logic

                                                      Propositional      Predicate

                                                      Calculus             Calculus

Propositional calculus forms the system of symbolic logic, the study being called Propositional Logic. It has only two admissible terms/symbols in T and F, together with logical propositions that are denoted by small letters; those symbols being indivisible and hence are called atomic formulae. Propositional calculus is based on study of well formed formulae or ‘wwf’, e.g.

( ~ A ) , ( A Λ B ) , ( if A then B ) etc.

Predicate calculus : What is a Predicate ?

06cd070e1f95efae9890306b920a4d9cA function from some domain to a truth value is a predicate.

If a domain has x variables , where x Є 0,1,2,3,…, then the function is called a x place predicate.

Predicate is a statement iff x = 0.

Statement is the unit from which high level language program is constructed i.e. a program is a sequence of statements.

Predicate calculus forms the system of inference that is the generalization of the extended propositional calculus.

DECLARATION : An element in a conventional program. It tells the program its scope and defines the static properties, e.g. declaration of variables, procedures etc.

Before exploring any further, lets take a look at what is BNF…

BNF: Backus normal/naur form. The first widely used notation for describing the syntax of  programming language, invented by John Backus. BNF is capable of describing any context free language.

< digit > :: = 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

< signed number > :: = < number > | + < number > | – < number >

:: = { is defined to }| { as }

angled brackets contain syntactic categories.

  • Context free language: A language generated by context free grammar.

Declarative Languages: Within its scope, the programs explicitly sate what properties the desired result is required to exhibit but not how to obtain them. Ideally it would contain an unordered set of equations sufficient to tell the desired result.

Functional languages: Subclass of declarative languages adhering to the rules of Lambda calculus. Their unordered sets of equations tell of functions and values.

Lambda calculus: Ways about functions and combining them. Formalized in nature. e.g.

λx . x, denotes the identity function, simply returning its argument.

λx . c,  denotes the constant function, returning c regardless of the argument applied.

λx . f ( f (x) )  composites function f with itself. For any argument x, f(x) is returned.

types

Lambda calculus comprises also of rules for transforming λ – expressions into equivalent ones. For e.g. the rule of β reduction, by which for e.g.

( λx . e1 ) ( e2 ) can be simplified.

λ ( x . f ( x,x ) ) ( a ) → β reduces to f (a,a )

In computer science, Lambda calculus has influenced the design of languages like LISP ( list processing ).

Formal languages: A finite or infinite subset of the set ∑ of all ∑ – words for some finite set of symbols ∑.

∑ is the alphabet of the language.

GRAMMAR:

A principal way for specifying an infinite formal language by finite means. Grammar consists of a set of productions/rules that derive one string from substring replacement. An alphabet is divided into a set of terminal symbols T and a set of non-terminal symbols N. The specified language consists of strings of terminals only.

G is defined as two sets of symbols T and N, a system of T U N and an esoteric member S of N. Language generated by G is the set of all strings over T that can be derived from S, S being the start symbol. e.g.

Let T be { b , c }, N be { S , A } and let the productions be

  1. S → SA
  2. S → A
  3. A → b

Starting from S, we can derive bcbcbc via

SA − by production 1)

SAA − by 2)

AAA − by 3)

bcAA − by 3)

bcbcA − by 3)

bcbcbc − by 3)

the language generated is

{ bc, bcbc, bcbcbc, …, etc.}

strings of bs and cs are derivable from S.

The syntax of programming languages is designed by context free grammar (above example is an illustration).

Context Free Grammar: has the left hand side of each production a single non-terminal. They have the form

A → α ; α is a string belonging to T or N.

A → α1 | α 2        

Or

| αn-1| αn

In contrast, we have the context-sensitive grammar, where the production has the form

α A β → α γ β ; A is a non terminal

α, β, γ are arbitrary words with γ being non-empty.

More importantly to derive an empty word,

S → Λ must be included……