jueves, 13 de diciembre de 2012

miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012

Algunas herramientas para mejorar la seguridad y privacidad


https://anonymousaction.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/algunas-herramientas-para-mejorar-la-seguridad-y-privacidad/

Te guste o no, en la Red también eres observado y monitorizado
Aunque aún pueda quedar algún que otro detractor, no dudes que tu navegador amigo por excelencia es FIREFOX. Es en el que sin lugar a dudas podrás navegar de forma más anónima, aunque quizás no tan rápido, pero dado el aumento de la censura y la criminalización que estamos sufriendo, es el más recomendado. En Firefox tienes muchísimos addons a tu disposición para controlar tu anonimato e incluso visualizar qué webs siguen tu rastro.
Lo primero que cualquier persona debería hacer es usar una VPN para ocultar su IP; no sólo desde tu ordenador personal si no para cualquier sistema, plataforma o medio a través del cual te vayas a conectar a Internet. Existen VPN’s gratuitas y otras de pago, y como hemos dicho numerosas veces, las gratuitas no son muy fiables (suelen guardar los movimientos que haces, tu IP original que se conecta a la IP generada por la VPN, etc.)  En este link podréis encontrar un listado de algunas VPN’s. En este otro link tenéis multitud de VPN’s para elegir la que más se adapte a vuestros gustos.
Luego, independientemente del navegador que utilices la mejor opción para tu correo electrónico es anonmail. Sin embargo, tiene sus inconvenientes, como que tu cuenta se borra si no inicias sesión en un mes o que tiene muy poco espacio (en la opción gratuita, claro). Por otro lado, puedes encriptar tus correos y no  estás  bajo el control de Google o Microsoft, quienes cada día hacen  más  modificaciones de privacidad, mermándola y no haciéndola más fuerte  como  deberían. Dentro de no mucho tiempo será sin duda obligatorio  poner tu número de móvil para activar una nueva cuenta, y seguramente  para  mantener alguna anterior si la tuvieses también.
Como buscador todos sabemos que Google es el número 1, aunque no hay que olvidar que tenemos opciones. Sin embargo, dentro de Google tenemos la opción segura de búsqueda mediante SSL (encriptada), de forma que se codifiquen tus búsquedas para quien pretenda controlarlas (Facebook, por ejemplo). Esta es la página, y te recomendamos que la hagas tu página de inicio. También puedes añadirla en la barra del Firefox como buscador. Existe para YouTube. Para Wikipedia. Para Twitter. Y muchos más que puedes buscar en el buscador de addons del Firefox poniendo el tag ‘SSL’.
Algunos addons imprescindibles para Firefox
Mientras no uséis una VPN, o incluso mejor al tiempo que la usáis, os recomendamos que añadáis en vuestro Firefox el addon ‘anonimoX‘. Este addon lo podéis encontrar aquí. Lo que hace es cambiar vuestra IP por otra distinta, la cual a su vez os la mostrará en la barra de navegación del Firefox y sabréis de esta forma qué IP estáis usando. Además borra todas las cookies de los lugares que visitéis, y te permite poner una distinta IP para distintas webs. Tiene muchas opciones de configuración. Lo mejor que podemos deciros es que lo probéis vosotros mismos.
Collusion no sirve para esconder tu IP si no para saber quién está siguiendo tu pista, quién te está espiando o monitorizando tus pasos en la red. Te muestra las distintas páginas, pero no te da opción de impedirles que te sigan siguiendo, no obstante es útil; el conocimiento siempre es poder.
AdBlock plus: Bloquea  la publicidad molesta de los sitios webs que visites. WordPress  introduce publicidad en sus blogs, en éste mismo podéis observarla (nos gustaría quitarla pero no podemos hacer nada para eliminarla por el momento). Para  evitar que os molesten estos banners en este blog y en otros muchos sitios webs, recomendamos tenerlo siempre activado.
AdBlock plus pop-up: Bloquea los pop-up de publicidad, complementa al AdBlock plus.
Better privacyBetter  Privacy te ofrece protección especial para las cookies de larga  duración. Este addon se hizo para cerciorar a los usuarios sobre esos  objetos escondidos, que nunca desaparecen, y para ofrecer un modo más  sencillo para gestionarlos, desde que los navegadores son incapaces de  hacerlo por tí.
Bloody vikingsSimplifica el uso de los e-mails temporales ayudándote a proteger tu IP de Spam y permaneciendo anónimo. Soporta estos servidores: 10minutemail.com, anonbox.net, mailinator.com, yopmail.com, dispostable.com,  mailcatch.com, mailforspam.com, spamavert.com, trash-mail.com,  koszmail.pl
Dt WhoisBotón de Domaintools whois, para hacer un whois rápido y sencillo.
Do not Track Plus( -esta no ha sido testeada- ). Creémos que es un buen complemento al Ghostery. Bloquea más de 600 tracerts.
HttpsEverywhereSirve  para cifrar la información enviada o recibida entre el navegador y los  sitios webs que visites. Fuerza a buscar el protocolo “https” en cada  sitio web que visites.
NoScriptTu eliges qué JavaScript y plugins permitir (incluso permitirlos temporalmente, si quieres) en cada sitio web que visites.
FoxyProxy: Es una herramienta de administración de proxies avanzada. Automatiza el  proceso manual de modificar los parámetros de las Propiedades de  Conexión de Firefox. El cambio de servidor proxy depende de la página a  cargar y de las reglas de selección definidas por el usuario.
GreaseMonkeyTe permite personalizar la manera que un sitio web se muestra, o su comportamiento mediante pequeños fragmentos de JavaScript
GhosteryBloquea scripts de compañías como Google Analytics, Facebook, etc (ocultos en sitios webs) que tracean tu movimiento por la red.
Todas estas utilidades y recursos que tenemos y tenéis a vuestro alcance para anonimizar vuestro paso por la red, a parte de ser una precaución necesaria dados los tiempos que corren, su uso también constituye un acto de rebeldía en sí  mismo.
La tendencia actual, vistas las legislaciones que se quieren  implantar por parte de los gobiernos, deja entrever que intentarán que  Internet tienda día tras día a una mayor vinculación entre navegación e identidad real, algo que va evidentemente en contra de los propios  principios y naturaleza de la red.
Usemos las herramientas que tenemos a nuestro alcance y reclamémos nuestro derecho a usarlas, no nos  limitemos a quejarnos el día que nos las arrebaten

lunes, 3 de diciembre de 2012

y mientras en twitter...


#SandyBotaObama,
Esto es lo que está pasando en Twitter

------------------------


* Historias *

------------------------

Detenida una activista de la PAH cuando iba a declarar por la paralización de un
desahucio

La policía detiene a Feli Velázquez por no querer identificarse en una concentración
de apoyo a ella y otras 7 personas que acudían a juicio"No le he querido dar mi DNI
a la policía porque precisamente por eso, por…

eldiario.es - Twittear esta historia:
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eldiario.es%2Fsociedad%2FDetenida-activista-Plataforma-Afectados-Hipoteca_0_74192722.html&text=Detenida+una+activista+de+la+PAH+cuando+iba+a+declarar+por+la+paralizaci%C3%B3n+de+un+desahucio&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&uid=61201368&nid=12+153+20121202

Twitteado por Hugo Martínez Abarca, Stéphane M. Grueso, DRYmalaga, Syriza Española,
Javier Cabrera, Don Ricardo 14N, Kolontai , Juan Luis Sánchez, eldiario.es, ARMAK de
ODELOT, GT Economía Sol, Asamblea Torrejón, 

------------------------

Un hombre de 59 años inmerso en un desahucio se suicida en Santesteban

El fallecido tenía una deuda por impago de alquiler de unos 4.200 euros. La orden de
desalojo se iba a hacer efectiva desde hoy

politica.elpais.com - Twittear esta historia:
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitica.elpais.com%2Fpolitica%2F2012%2F11%2F28%2Factualidad%2F1354107537_371737.html&text=Un+hombre+de+59+a%C3%B1os+inmerso+en+un+desahucio+se+suicida+en+Santesteban&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&uid=61201368&nid=12+154+20121202

Twitteado por C_Zer0, Democracia real YA!, Javier Cabrera, Todos somos griegos,
Asamblea Torrejón, Kaosenlared_net, Stéphane M. Grueso, StopDesahuciosBCN, Asamblea
Lavapiés, Luis M Domínguez, Javier Gallego Crudo, ★LobaSola★, 

------------------------

LO QUE NO TE VAN A CONTAR SOBRE EL RESCATE A LA BANKIA

Plan estratégico de Bankia bankiaplanestrategico Las instituciones, el Estado, lo
público, han claudicado nuevamente ante la bancocracia. Ayer, 28 de Noviembre,
parecía que era un mes más tarde y q...

15mparato.wordpress.com - Twittear esta historia:
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2F15mparato.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2F29%2Frescatebankia&text=LO+QUE+NO+TE+VAN+A+CONTAR+SOBRE+EL+RESCATE+A+LA%C2%A0BANKIA&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&uid=61201368&nid=12+155+20121202

Twitteado por X.net, DemocraciarealJa BCN, C_Zer0, Asamblea Malasaña, Stéphane M.
Grueso, Fotomovimiento, Almeida, Democracia real YA!, Plan de Rescate , 15M Bruselas
, DRYmalaga, Partido Pirata, 

------------------------

Los jueces acuerdan paralizar todos los procesos de desahucio

Deciden dar a los afectados un plazo para que se acojan al nuevo decreto. En el mes
de diciembre había previsto llevar a cabo unos 50 desalojos

diariocordoba.com - Twittear esta historia:
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.diariocordoba.com%2Fnoticias%2Fcordobalocal%2Flos-jueces-acuerdan-paralizar-todos-los-procesos-de-desahucio_765177.html&text=Los+jueces+acuerdan+paralizar+todos+los+procesos+de+desahucio&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&uid=61201368&nid=12+156+20121202

Twitteado por 15MValladolid, Jose Cosin #14N, ★LobaSola★, Ni #PPSOE ni #CiU, ARMAK
de ODELOT, coop57, Fotomovimiento, Blog Fran Sevilla , Partido Pirata, Santiago
Romero Ruiz, Juventud SIN futuro, Almeida, 

------------------------

El pensionista medio deja de cobrar 436 euros por la decisión del Gobierno

Una pensión de 835 euros dejará de percibir los 222 euros de la paga compensatoria
de enero, más el coste mensual que supone no cambiar la base sobre la que se
aplicará la subida

economia.elpais.com - Twittear esta historia:
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Feconomia.elpais.com%2Feconomia%2F2012%2F11%2F30%2Factualidad%2F1354302702_037989.html&text=El+pensionista+medio+deja+de+cobrar+436+euros+por+la+decisi%C3%B3n+del+Gobierno&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&uid=61201368&nid=12+157+20121202

Twitteado por EL PAIS, Pepo Jiménez, Revista Mongolia, Santiago Romero Ruiz, Ana
#FreeGaza, Todos somos griegos, carlosbardem , Partido Pirata, Fotomovimiento,
Kaosenlared_net, Rojo y Negro, Blog Fran Sevilla , 

------------------------


* Tweets *

------------------------

Santos Chiches  @SantosChiches

@GLlamazares la aportación de @iabierta a la izquierda es mantener a Madrazo, a IU
en Extremadura y a Pérez en Madrid #graciasGaspar

https://twitter.com/SantosChiches/status/275260017979056128?uid=61201368&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&nid=12+45+20121202

------------------------

David Jimenez @DavidJimenezTW

Compras el periódico hoy y crees que te han dado uno del 95: Felipe González portada
de El País y Aznar de El Mundo

https://twitter.com/DavidJimenezTW/status/275201216739418112?uid=61201368&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&nid=12+46+20121202

------------------------

Power Ranger Lolailo @110010010011010

#sosdiscapacidad muuuuucha gente y tremenda batucada animando el barrio de
Salamanca. A ver si se enteran. http://t.co/9rfQZ93N

https://twitter.com/110010010011010/status/275195891927896064?uid=61201368&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&nid=12+47+20121202

------------------------

Jordi Évole @jordievole

Hoy en #Salvados "Fraude rico, fraude pobre"... Otra vez habrá gente a quien no le
guste... por suerte!!! #HoyHaySalvados

https://twitter.com/jordievole/status/275293550252539905?uid=61201368&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&nid=12+48+20121202

------------------------

Armando el pollo @Arma_pollo

Abrazando a La Princesa #abrazasanidad http://t.co/P6f6x6Rx

https://twitter.com/Arma_pollo/status/275183490058813440?uid=61201368&iid=b63334e5-e433-4463-b0b8-35baf6314a25&nid=12+49+20121202

------------------------

el capitalismo es incompatible con la democracia




1. once we talk more openly now on climate change, what actualy seems to
be a great success, Sandy having broking "that big contemporaneous silent
censor(c)ship",

2. we are closer to focus in "a-so-far-land" as: the car mastodontic
system, and the way to survive to it,

3.  if all universities were so ciber inter actives, as this
eanth-list...! :)

4. about the ways for returning from that planetary massacre by
one-person-one-vehicle consumer-and-consumig phylosophy that always it is
time to revise and transforming towards more humanising cities and
agriculture, in a desirable more-than-global approach,

5. cars, with independence of the climate change problems, cause, have
caused, and will caused so highest numbers of damn and destruction to
people, public health, ecosystems, entire regions, for example in East Us
Coasts, subsummed beyond a minimal eco guarantee of survival, derived of
human invasion of too closer coastal areas, in so expansive, car-"owned",
urban sprawl,

6. all "social" would be revised and enriched from "eco-social",

7. in that way we fertilize old dychotomies within themselves:
rural-and-urban, as two complementary, synergic focus in symbiosis,

8. all living systems are technologies "per-se", humans transform them, as
all other species and individuals have cooperate, with humans, now and in
biological history, transforming, producing and reproducing them
(technologies) in symbiosis,

9. this make possible to attend to your own body as a super ellaborated
combination of (bio)technologies,

10. and who is who co-ordinate all that perfect technological owr body
system?

and 11. you are also the technologist,

co-mmanding yourself, in the supossed case you know a minimal the living
life and landscapes, of your surroundings, where maybe you would need one
day to escape from a certain "environmental problem", and survive in
interdependence of a useful biodiversity, but only if we have a minimal
useful knowledge. The curious gift of present, so considered, is the
paradox that we forcefuly need how to survive, again, in natural areas,
exploring them, (precautionary principle knowledge), enjoying them, and,
at the same time, for a possible crisis

mimouX or sensing multi co operative system:

https://www.google.es/search?hl=es&rlz=1C1CHIK_esES406ES406&q=mimouX+multi+co+operative+system&oq=mimouX+multi+co+operative+system&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=95913l104638l0l107443l32l32l0l26l0l0l218l1063l1.3.2l6l0


Salud!


agustin antunez corrales
prof. tit.

Universidad de Málaga, Andalucía
departamento de biología animal

https://twitter.com/kamalayamala
http://www.facebook.com/megustagustinant


"Iniciativas de Sostenibilidad Medioambiente y Autogestión":
https://www.google.es/search?q=%22Iniciativas+de+Sostenibilidad+Medioambiente+y+Autogesti%C3%B3n%22&rls=com.microsoft:es:%7Breferrer:source?%7D&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_esES468&redir_esc=&ei=PM-8UPCfMNC4hAfX5oHwAw


"Agustín Antúnez Corrales":

https://www.google.es/search?q=%22Agust%C3%ADn+Ant%C3%BAnez+Corrales%22&rls=com.microsoft:es:%7Breferrer:source?%7D&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_esES468&redir_esc=&ei=gM-8UOuSIIWFhQenkYCABA


"simbiodiversidad":

https://www.google.es/search?q=simbiodiversidad&rls=com.microsoft:es:%7Breferrer:source?%7D&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_esES468&redir_esc=&ei=B9G8UMSkEcPChAfczoGgBA

------------------------------------------------------------
eanth-l@listserv.uga.edu - A forum for discussing ecology and
the environment in anthropology and related social sciences.
For more information, or to unsubscribe, visit our website at
http://www.eanth.org

The only interesting ideas are heresies


http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/11/30/susan-sontag-on-art/


The excerpts:
All aesthetic judgment is really cultural evaluation. (9/3/1956)
All great art contains at its center contemplation, a dynamic contemplation. (9/10/1964)
Modern aesthetics is crippled by its dependence upon the concept of ‘beauty.’ As if art were ‘about’ beauty—as science is ‘about’ truth! (9/10/1964)
Art is a form of consciousness (11/1/1964)
Art is a form of nourishment (of consciousness, the spirit) (11/25/1964)
Could get a new art movement every month just by reading Scientific American. (3/26/1965)
Art is the production of mental events in / as a concrete sensuous form (12/4/1979)
Why has there been no new international style in 50 years? Because the new ideas, the new needs are not yet clear. (Hence, we content ourselves with variations + refinements on Art Deco and, for refreshment + fusions, parodistic — ‘pop’ — revivals of older styles.) (8/8/1975)
The only interesting ideas are heresies (6/30/1975)

viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012

SPINOZA Y LA MULTITUD



SPINOZA Y LA MULTITUD (EL RESTO FALTAba: se llama muchedumbre)
NOTA PARA UNA CONTEXTUALIZACIÓN
Texto a modo de "introducción" que precede a la obra Spinoza y la multitud (el resto falta) publicada en la colección de teatro de la editorial Hiru, Hondarribia, 2012.

Juan Pedro García del Campo

(((: nota del pronetario bloguero: ¿El Resto Falta? ¿El resto pasaa ser el (máximo) exponente en la ecuación vital entonces? ¿el resto no es la sensosfera subjetiva objetiva compartida, tridimensional, de la que ahora, tras leer que eco es sonido en griego del griego, me doy cuenta que la mono y uni dimensionalidad, que daba wikipedia a los “cinco” sentidos, y que la acustica musical y la escasa mente desarrollada acustica fisica y o cientifica, replican, al tratar al sonido como un vector en una dimension, que va de un percutor a un oyente, cuando anoche yomismo me fijaba en escuchar, desde mi propio oido, la vibración, pues sonora, o sonora ósea, sonora serpiente, que durante un ratito producía el vaivén supersónico de los hematíes “rozándome el oído” – la oreja, en su canal medio interno, como en algun lugar de este embudo orejil, lo había sentido o percibido y notado miles de veces, alguien lo habrá descrito? Es un zumbido que dura lo que dura dura...
spinoza si era algo era es panteista, el panteista es eterno, inmanente, brisa que va y o viene, recomiendo al efecto el debate sobre gaia, publicitado en (( Knowledge Ecology))
margulises quizas una de las piezas más fértiles en esta rica textura tan vital, pues eleva a darwin al cuadrado, al trazar las traviesas transversales en el arbol evolutivo, lo hace tridimensional!
Margulis es la gran anarquista cientifica del XXI, debatir ahorita sobre Gaia que está tan tentona, con personajes elevados a la fama de la noche a la mañana, como Sandy, que hace tiempo solo anidaban en los sueños de algunos locos ecologistas,
mirar si anarquismo y Gaia casan mejor ahora, pues antes tenian sus mas y sus menos,
gaia y bacterias nos unen y llevan a los humanos, por ejemplo, como bebes anidados calentitos, meciendose en una hamaka a uso akromático, dos estremos, dos enfoques complementarios dos visos o viseras, en un cristal escribes gaia en el otro prochloron, tus guías para que no te desguíes, desde lo grandote a l pequeñote...

la muchedumbre de bits que tu cuerpo siente en el consentir cotidiano, en esa sinestsia melodica y musical del con despertar de cada día, son otros muchosa cuerpos expresandose y hasta paisajes enteros, edificios, donde tu suave silbido compro baras como rebota a un distancia tan grande, que ahí quizas sea más facil llegar a aislar el centro solo de las ondas que concentricamente, rebotan hacia tí desde lejos, y oyes tan débiles, que vienen ahora sí, al menos así las percbimos, muy centradas lineales y vectoriales

grasias juan!)))

En un libro titulado La anomalía salvaje. Ensayo sobre poder y potencia en Baruch Spinoza, en 1981, Antonio Negri puso por primera vez en valor un concepto que aparece en la obra política de Spinoza, en cuya importancia, hasta entonces, no habían reparado los comentaristas del filósofo del XVII. Se trataba del concepto de multitud.
Con la introducción de ese concepto, Spinoza había asestado un golpe mortal a las teorías del poder, haciendo a un tiempo imposibles tanto una concepción absolutista de la soberanía cuanto una concepción representacional del mando. Spinoza había, por tanto, levantado una monumental y anómala maquinaria de guerra (teórica) contra las formas en las que el mundo de la burguesía, en los siglos posteriores, pensó –e hizo pensar- su dominio como orden natural de las cosas.
Son las dinámicas de la multitud –y no las formas teológico-políticas que adopta el dominio-, viene a decir Spinoza, las que conforman la red de relaciones sociales y políticas en cada coyuntura y, así, es en las dinámicas de la multitud donde debe buscarse la clave para comprender cómo cada sociedad funciona en un momento determinado y para entender por qué cada sociedad presenta una u otra forma política. Las relaciones de dominio o, en el extremo contrario, el poder (del) común, la democracia, se juegan en las relaciones internas a las dinámicas de la multitud y no, por tanto, en las que pudieran establecerse entre la multitud y una instancia que estaría separada de ella, a la que unos llaman sociedad y otros Estado.
La filosofía de Spinoza, así, permite pensar en materialista tanto el poder como las formas de la acción política. Antes de que lo hiciera Marx y siguiendo la línea trazada previamente por Maquiavelo.

Desde 1980, por otra parte (la exactitud de la fecha no deja de ser irrelevante; digamos, de otro modo: Reagan y Thatcher; o también: postfordismo globalizado), asistimos en la Economía-Mundo a una fase de profunda recomposición del dominio: el triunfo de las políticas neo-liberales, una nueva expropiación del común que organiza para el beneficio privado los nuevos espacios ganados para la comunidad (los servicios públicos, la producción inmaterial, los saberes o la misma vida) y, también, la creciente evidencia del fiasco de las viejas formas de organización de la resistencia, desde los sindicatos fordistas hasta los partidos-vanguardia: no sólo traición, no ya traición; pertenencia a un mundo ya terminado. Desde 1980, en fin (la exactitud de la fecha no deja de ser irrelevante), la forma en que el poder se ejerce ha cambiado y, al mismo tiempo, como la otra cara del mismo acontecer, han perdido su potencia las formas en que el poder era enfrentado. Con el fin del modelo fordista de acumulación ha cambiado el mundo: todo ha cambiado en el mundo. Ni la industria es la principal fuerza productiva (apenas nos estaríamos refiriendo al 15% de la población) ni el obrero industrial (atado a reivindicaciones salariales o, lo que es peor, “económicas”) es el sujeto de la historia. Tanto la explotación como la resistencia se ejercen desde hace tiempo “en otro lado”.
Si la gran industria, desde el XIX, reunió en un mismo entorno a los obreros y, así, hizo posible la construcción de organizaciones de masas, la pérdida de centralidad de la producción industrial hizo perder a las organizaciones de masas el sustrato material en el que podían crecer y en el que su actuación podía tener eficacia. El tiempo del postfordismo y de la producción inmaterial genera un nuevo tipo de proletariado, un proletariado difuso, al que ya no agrupa la mera proximidad y que es obligado a vivir la explotación como si fuera un asunto privado. Un nuevo proletariado al que no sólo se explota en el lugar de trabajo, un nuevo proletariado que descubre su vida (toda su vida, la vida desnuda y el modo de “existencia social” en que se articula) como el auténtico (y nuevo) escenario de la lucha de clases.
Quizá la mayor de las derrotas que hemos sufrido deriva precisamente de no habernos sabido dar cuenta del cambio. Y así… militantes mirando de reojo a los nuevos movimientos sociales… y viéndolos sólo como movimientos desclasados, sin una “verdadera conciencia de clase”. Y así… movimientos sociales sin tradiciones de lucha de las que aprender: todo por inventar, pues lo ya inventado se revela (aunque sólo fuera por parcial) inútil.

En las últimas décadas, precisamente para pensar las nuevas formas de existencia y de lucha de ese proletariado difuso emergente, buena parte de los teóricos de la resistencia posible y necesaria, de la transformación irrenunciable, del enfrentamiento al capitalismo, han encontrado en la noción de multitud un modo de acercarse a la nueva realidad de las luchas.
Negri uno de ellos. Pero no el único. Muchos otros trabajan sobre el concepto y sobre las articulaciones organizativas, prácticas, que permitirían hacerlo útil para la liberación en el nuevo contexto. Contra Negri muchas veces, contra las simplificaciones y las mistificaciones que se leen en algunos de sus textos (el propio Negri ha modulado sus tesis de manera sustancial en sus distintas intervenciones). Y todos ellos a partir de una lectura política de la obra (filosófica y política) de Spinoza. Con la incomprensión, muchas veces, de los viejos militantes.
En los últimos tiempos, y sin la mala conciencia que a veces envuelve la ruptura con tradiciones que no dejan de saberse obsoletas, nuevas formas de enfrentamiento y lucha se levantan con la potencia de lo nuevo. La multitud parece, en ellas, ser el agente y el horizonte del cambio. El 15M es una. Y año y pico después de su eclosión… sigue viva (o mejor: sigue naciendo).

¿Es posible poner a dialogar al 15M con la apuesta materialista que articula la obra de Spinoza? ¿Es posible encontrar en Spinoza materiales para la transformación del mundo? Esas son las apuestas de las que parte el texto que sigue: más que una ficción, un laboratorio de sentidos. O eso quisiera.
El texto fue escrito durante el verano de 2011. Las referencias a los acontecimientos de aquellos días no han sido ocultadas y cualquiera podrá reconocerlas.

danser c'est bon


Sedentarism Rises, Becomes Global Health Hazard 
Traditionally, prevention of chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) focused on tobacco control and improved diet. In its new NCD prevention strategy outlined in a 2003 report on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases, the World Health Organization (WHO) underscores increased physical activity as a key component. This new emphasis, first introduced by WHO in 2002, is based on several facts. Firstly, convincing scientific evidence reveals that a lack of physical activity, or sedentarism, substantially increases (as much or even more than most other common risk factors) the probability of several of the most common NCDs, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, certain cancers and obesity, a major NCD risk factor. Secondly, sedentarism is common -- more prevalent that most other NCD risk factors, and it is rapidly increasing in most countries worldwide. Thirdly, the health consequences of sedentarism can be abolished or diminished substantially by moderate, feasible physical activity. And finally, increasing physical activity to sufficient levels to benefit health at individual and population levels is possible and economical, and may confer social and environmental advantages.
http://ceche.org/mol/Spring-03/features-2.html
The Facts
Sedentarism causes 1.9 million deaths annually around the globe; and it accounts for an estimated 8 to 10 percent of all deaths in Eastern Europe alone, where physical inactivity is particularly common. In the elderly, sedentarism increases the risk of serious bone fractures by as much as 50 percent and may accelerate loss of independence by several years. Physical inactivity also doubles the risk of becoming obese and is undoubtedly a major factor in the global obesity epidemic. Conversely, enhanced physical activity substantially attenuates the risks associated with obesity, even without significant effect on body weight.

Although it is widely accepted that 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity a day is sufficient to maintain good cardiovascular and metabolic health, WHO recommends 60 minutes a day of moderate-intensity exercise, such as brisk walking, to maintain healthy body weight, attain greater health benefits and avoid obesity. Sixty minutes of physical activity is particularly important for people with sedentary occupations.

Currently, at least 60 percent of the world's population does not meet even the 30-minute minimum. Meanwhile sedentarism is estimated to cause about 22 percent of all ischaemic heart disease and 10 to 16 percent of all ischaemic stroke, diabetes, colon cancer and breast cancer around the globe. Sedentarism also ranks seventh among WHO's risk factors for disease burden in developed countries, accounting for 3.3 percent of disability-adjusted life years. Added to elevated blood pressure, high cholesterol, overweight levels and obesity, the disease burden attributed to sedentarism increases substantially.

The financial costs of sedentarism are also high: In Canada, it accounts for about 6 percent of total health care costs. In the United States, physical inactivity together with obesity comprised 9.4 percent of the national health expenditure (US$94 billion) in 1995. 


Obstacles, Potential for Risk-Reduction and Strategies for Success
Physical inactivity continues to rise with the use of machines and automation at work, in transportation and for domestic chores. Meanwhile, few populations worldwide, including people in affluent societies, practice compensatory physical activity in leisure pursuits. In developing-country metropolises and among socially disadvantaged groups, traditions and lack of awareness are serious obstacles. In China, for example, bicycling, as a means of transportation, is rapidly decreasing -- without a compensatory increase in leisure-time physical activities because of a lack of tradition and opportunities.

This is disheartening news, especially since the risk-reduction from increased physical activity for several NCDs has been demonstrated in women and men, elderly subjects and high-risk groups. Two randomised controlled trials, one in the United States in 2002 and the other in Finland in 2001 revealed that modest changes in diet and physical activity decreased the development of new cases of type 2 diabetes by 58 percent within three years among high-risk middle-aged women and men.

Successive national physical activity programs in Finland since 1991 indicate that it is possible to maintain, and even expand, participation in leisure-time physical activities among various population groups. Several examples from major European cities demonstrate that walking and cycling as modes of transportation can be substantially increased. Bicycling grew by 7 to 16 percent in Basel, Switzerland, Graz, Austria and Hannover, Germany, and rose 29 to 43 percent in Delft, The Netherlands and Munster, Germany within a 10- to 20-year period as a result of cycling networks and traffic calming, for example.
Maximum benefits, however, can be achieved only by comprehensive, long-term measures that combine individual, population and environmental approaches; meet the needs and expectations of the targeted subjects; use a variety of settings; emphasize local initiatives and actions; and support sustained collaboration among multiple partners in both governmental and nongovernmental sectors.

The first step is to win sufficient political support and commitment. This requires raising public awareness of the health benefits of physical activity. The experiences of the United States, Canada, several European countries and major international organizations such as WHO demonstrate that it is possible to apply such strategies and mobilize resources to increase health-promoting physical activity

Ecosystemic Linguistics


by Hildo Honorio do Couto
In general referring to Haugen (1972), Ecolinguistics is generally defined as the study of the interactions (inter-relations) between language and its environment. Both the prefix 'eco-' and this definition of the discipline point towards biological Ecology. In Ecology, 'environment' is part of an ecosystem, i.e., it is the place where a species or a group of species live together and its members interact among themselves. The 'ecosystem', on its turn, consists of a population of organisms together with the inter-relations (interactions) with the habitat (ecological niche, biotope or territory), depending on the point of view, as well of the interactions of individual organisms between/among themselves. Since the expression 'environment' has been the object of misunderstanding as, for instance, its direct association only with environmentalism, I believe that a more adequate definition could be that Ecolinguistics is the study of the interactions between language and its social, mental and natural context (environment). Another possibility of saying the same thing could be: Ecolinguistics is the study of the linguistic inter-relations that obtain at the social, mental and natural level. These last two definitions avoid a reification of language, as will be clear below, I think.

We know that 'ecosystem' is the central concept of Ecology. To the point that the latter could be just as well be called "Ecosystemics" (parallel to "phonemics" and “proxemics”, for instance), without any conceptual loss. On the other hand, Ecology could also be defined as "the study of ecosystems", because everything in it emerges out of the ecosystem. This is the case with its characteristics and/or features such as (a) interaction, (b) diversity, (c) openness, (d) holism, (e) adaptation, (f) ecological succession/evolution, and (g) long term view. Let us take a look at each one of them in order to understand the importance of the ecological viewpoint in the study of linguistic phenomena.

It is important to stress the point that language is part of an ecosystem, its 'exoecology', but it contains ecosystems inside itself, its 'endoecology', to use Makkai's (1993) terminology. To linguistic exoecology would belong the relationships between/among languages, between language and its users as well as between language and territory (or natural world). The endoecological relationships are basically what has been called the 'language system'. In this case we would have, among others, the 'syntactic ecosystem', the 'morphological ecosystem', the 'phonological ecosystem' and, maybe, a 'phonetic ecosystem', as is done in Neurocognitive Linguistcs, formerly known as 'Stratificational Grammar' (see Lamb 1966, 2000; Couto 1982). Sometimes we hear even expressions such as 'ecology of grammar' (Steffenson 2008), 'ecology of text' and so on. Taking into consideration the fact that the lexicon is structured (in semantic fields, for example), probably we could also talk about 'ecology of the lexicon'.

Let us begin with the concept of INTERACTION. It is not the population of organisms nor their habitat that is relevant in an ecosystem. These are the subject of Biology and of Genetics. The object of study of the ecologist is the inter-relations that take place inside the ecosystem, both (a) the organism-habit interactions and (b) the organism-organism interactions. The former (a) are equivalent to 'signification' (reference, denotation) and the latter (b) homologizes to 'communication' (communicative interaction). Interaction is the basis of everything in Ecology and, consequently, in the ecosystem. It is also the basis for the ecolinguistic definition of language which is given elsewhere in this paper. Practically everything that is said of language and languages is based on it. In summary, in accordance with modern science, such as Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics, the whole world is an immense web of inter-relations. There are affinities even with some more recent trends in the sciences, as is the case with Systems Theory, Prigogine's Dissipative Structures and, maybe, eve fractals (see the iteration especially in phrase and text construction!). After all, the concept of interaction is present in the definition of the remaining characteristics and/or features of the ecosystem, as we will see soon.

The ecosystemic approach shows us that language is basically interaction. The interactions that make language up are inside the 'linguistic ecosystem'. There are several bundles of interactions, which are 'ecosystems' in their own right, i.e., endoecological ecosystem. Since it is ECOsystem, it is 'system'. To put it simply, it is a structure, albeit an open one, a dissipative structure. It is a system in the sense of Chaos Theory and of Quantum Mechanics. This is accepted even by the late Saussurean structuralist Eugenio Coseriu (Coseriu 1979).

DIVERSITY is also very important for the vitality of an ecosystem. The more variety of species there is in its interior the more vital it is; the less species, the more fragile. For instance, an ecosystem like the Amazonian biome is highly resistant. So much so that the disappearance of one species is replaced with one of the thousands of other species that exist in its domain. An ecosystem with only three or two species (predator and prey, for instance) will fatally disappear as soon as one or the other of them disappear. This is the case not only with nature, but also with culture, including language. For example, if India had only one language like Hindi, it would be culturally much poorer than it is with its over 16 official languages, besides many minority ones.

In regard to OPENNESS, sometimes also called "porosity" or "permeability", it has a lot to do with the idea of dissipative structures. Every ecosystem leaks. It gives and receives energy and information to/from adjacent ecosystems. There is a constant flow of energy among them due mainly to the fact that there are no clearly delimited natural limits (no fence) between/among them, but a continuum. The ecosystem is delimited by the observer, who establishes an imaginary line separating the ecosystem s/he will investigate from the environing ones. In spite of that, it is structured because it is an 'ecoSYSTEM'. The interactions that can be seen inside it follow some principles, they are not entirely random.

HOLISM has to do with the fact that, once delimited by the observer, the ecosystem is regarded as a whole, even when attention is focussed on one specific species or even on only one specimen. S/he studies the inter-relations of this specimen (or this species) with the whole ecosystem s/he delimited. In other wsords, since even the world as a whole is an immense web of inter-relations, the ecologist investigates what goes on inside the ecosystem s/he delimited as a whole, not only one or another part of it. In the case of language, there are inter-relations between syntax and intonation as well as morphology, phonology and even with the lexicon, even if generative grammar denies the fact. In some sense, syntax is related even to the ecology of communicative interaction.

The idea of ADAPTATION is very important for the survival of the species and of each specimen of organism that make it up. Darwin emphasized 'competition' and the 'suvival of the fittest'. However, more recently scientists have come to the conclusion that the species that have more chances of survival are those that adapt themselves the most to new circumstances. One good example is the cockroach. It exists since pre-historic times, and is one of the few that would survive an atomic catastrophe. This is due to the fact that it is highly adaptable. The opposite of this happened to dinosaurs: because they were hardly adaptable they disappeared. In the dynamics of language, adaptation can be seen in the communicative interaction, in which the speaker tries to express him/helself as s/he thinks the hearer will understand, while the hearer tries to interpret what s/he hears in the sense s/he thinks was intended by the speaker. To learn a language is to adapt to the way of communicatin of a new speech community. Transplanted languages adapt to the new environment and so on.

EVOLUTION, called 'ecological succession' in ecology, is another characteristic of vital importance for the survival of the ecosystem. In fact, it has a lot to do with adaptation. To adapt is to evolve. To evolve is to adapt. The emergence, aging and death of an organism or species is evolution, which has no teleology. It happens randomly, as is the case with Chaos Theory. The same happens to language. As Coseriu (1979) put it, language exists because it changes, it works only because it changes. Even in the acquisition of the parents' language (L1) by children there is change, since, as Mufwene (2001) put it, the child always replicates the parents' language imperfectly, that is to say, by introducing changes in it. A language that remained unchanged as precriptive grammarians would like it would die in a few generations because it would not adapt, therefore it would no more fulfill the communicative needs of the new context. That is to say, evolution seems to be the reverse of the coin (heads) whose other side (tails) is adaptation.

LONG TERM VIEW is also important in ecological thinking. As has already been said, nature is not in a hurry. Therefore, it does not make sense to talk about 'protecting nature', 'defence of an ecosystem' and so on. Nature will follow its course with or without us. What we do to her (or in her) now, even what seems apparently harmless, may have serious consequences in the future. For instance, nobody knows whether she will react negatively (from our point of view) to the voracious extraction of oil from its bowels. Today we cannot perceive any consequence of this extraction. However, who could assure with certainty that there will be none in one century, or even in fifty years? Many present-day devastators of the natural landscape for kettle raising as well as for corn planting may say in the future: "Oh, if I had known that in those times!". But, then it will be to late. In this case, for our own survival it is wise to think far ahead.

Maybe this is the characteristics of ecological thinking that is the less directly applicable in language studies. However, it has a lot to do with language policy and language planning, to begin with. Let us see the case of India and China. The administrators of the former would like to have Hindi as the official language of the whole country but the speakers of the other languages do not agree. For this reason, English has been adopted for the time being. Since above all speakers of Dravidic languages still reject Hindi in this role, English continues to be the official language parallel to Hindi (and other languages, in some regions). In the former there are several languages like Cantonese, Hakka and others but Chinese authorities try to impose the idea that they are simple 'dialects' of Mandarin, the only 'language of China'. Due to the Chinese well-known persistence, this idea is put forward even if there are no native speakers of Mandarin in several places of the country. In the long run this centralizind policy may have some of the desired (by the authorities) results.

As will be seen with Mark Garner below, Ecolinguistics should not adopt concepts from Ecology only as metaphors. On the contrary, they must be used as an epistemological basis, as the bricks with which an ecolinguistics truly ecological can be built. As we have seen above, the most important, central, ecological concept of ecology is 'ecosystem'. Everything in ecology is embedded in it. For this reason, we must begin our endeavor by looking for the 'linguistic ecosystem', also called 'community' in common parlance. This linguistic ecosystem consists of a people (P), living in some place that is its territory (T), and interacting verbally among themselves as is usual in this community. This 'traditional way of interacting communally' is language (L).

Long term view is intimately associated to an idea which environment managers and humans in general must always keep in mind, namely, SUSTAINABILITY. It emerged in the context of the Stockholm Conference (1972), was reinforced in other conferences that took place after it. The outcome was the Brundtland Report - Our Common Future (1987). The basic idea is that the development to satisfy the needs of the present generations cannot be impede tha the future generations satisfy their own needs. In other words, since 'development' is inevitable, let it be at least sustainable, or sustained.

Ecolinguistics should not borrow concepts from Ecology as mere metaphors. On the contrary, we should use them as an epistemological basis, as the bricks with which we build a truly ecological linguistics, i.e., Ecolinguistics. As is well known, the central and most important concept of Ecology is 'ecosystem'. Everything ecological lies it its interior. For this reason, it is advisable to start by looking for its nearest eclogical equivalent. Still better, we should start by lookin for the 'linguistic ecosystem' which, in the end, is what common sense calls 'community', sometimes 'language/linguistic community' and/or 'speech community'. It consists of a population or a people (P), living in some place which is its territory (T), and speaking its own language (L).

Linguistic ecosystem (or 'language ecosystem') can be regarded from two points of view. First of all, we can depart from the 'acts of communicative interaction' which take place inside the 'ecology of communicative interaction'. Any group of people (P) living together in a certain place or territory (T) and communicating among themselves through the usual way of communicating, their language (L), is a 'speech community' (SP). SP is always small, what facilitates daily interaction, by the medium of words or not. However, the linguistic ecosystem may also be considered from the perspective of 'language community' (LC). This is the domain of what commonsense calls 'language'. In this case, the domain of the Portuguese LC comprizes Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissao, São Tomé and Príncipe and East Timor. That is to say, SP presupposes constant verbal interactions, on a daily basis, whereas LC is an abstraction because it is the domain of the system. It does not presuppose concrete interactions. They are on the side of potentialities. There is a chain of implications or embeddings that go from the 'acts of communicative interacions', which are part of the 'ecology of communicative interaction', which, on its turn, takes place inside a 'speech community'. SP is intimately related to 'language community'. The latter is a kind of summary of the former.

An LC may consist of a single SP, as is the case with small Amerindian commnities made up of a few dozens of people or even less than that. It may also consist of thousands of SPs, as is the case with Portuguese LC. In its domain, the investigator may delimit any stretch of land (T), inhabited by a small group of people (P) which interacts verbally as is usual to interact locally.
Here is a table of equivalences between concepts of Biological Ecology and Linguistic Ecology, or Ecological Linguistics (Ecolinguistics, for short):

Biological Ecology                            Ecological Linguistics 
- ecosystem                                        - ling. ecosystem, lang. community
- population                                       - people (P)
- habitat (biotope, niche)                   - territory (T)
- inter-relations (interactions)           - linguage (L) 
a) organism-world interactions                          - signification
b) organism-organism interactions                     - communication (communicative interaction)

For this and other reasons, in Brasília we follow a few ecolinguists, such as Peter Finke, his disciple Wilhelm Trampe, besides Hans Stroher, the Odense School (Jørgen Døør, Jørgen C. Bang, Sune Steffenson etc.) who see in the ecosystem a basis for Ecolinguistics. Elsewhere we have the Catalan Albert Bastardas i Boada, the Hungarian-American Adam Makkai, the British Mark Garner and others. In other words, the variety of Ecolinguistics we do came to be called Ecosystemic Linguistics.

As far as I know, Strohner (footnote) was the first to spell it out. Following what Peter Finke had previously suggested (then followed by Trampe), Strohner used the expression 'ecosystemic linguistics' (ökosystemische Sprachwissenschaft) already in the title of his essay. Initially, he presents the 'computer metaphor', the "brain metaphor' and the 'ecosystem metaphor'. According to him, ecosystem metaphor is more in line with the present state of our knowledge. He says further that "the ecosystemic approach allows a foundation for Ecolinguistics from the theoretical and the methodological point of view. Only on this basis it is possible to give this discipline a rational praxis". For this reason, he follows "an ecosystemic theory and methodology" (p. 49). In the section "Methodology" of his essay, he uses the expression 'ecosystemic linguistics' (ökosystemische Linguistik) four times. As we can see, the idea of an Ecosystemic Linguistics was already in embryo in the very site of the birth of Ecolinguistics.

It is true that other authors that talk about 'ecosystem' in language studies are referring to ecosystems as language systems or groups, language families that share a specific territory, as is the case with Denison (2001) and Bastardas i Boada (2000). The former talk about "European language ecology", using "ecology" instead of 'ecosystem'. In this connection, it would be interesting to call to mind the well-known concept of Sprachbund, as the Balcanic, for instance. The latter study the difficulties Catalan has for living together with Spanish. There is a population and a political pressure of the latter on the former. Even the "father" of Ecolinguistics, Einar Haugen (1972), departs implicitly from the ecosystem when he says that the main areas of research of the future discipline are questions such as bi-/multilingualism, language contact and others, that is to say, languages sharing a certain territory with which they would make up an ecosystem.

What is the object of Ecosystemic Linguistics? It is the branch of Ecolinguistics that studies in language everything that can be naturally explained from the concept of ecosystem and its characteristics or features. In spite of the fact that this assertion is somehow tautologic, it contains several illuminating implications for Ecolinguistics. One of the most important one is the fact that for Ecosystemic Linguistics language is mainly 'communicative interaction' by means of words. As we have seen, language is the equivalent of ecological inter-relatons (interactions), better, it is these interactions. Even if we want to use the "ecological metaphor", what is not the better procedure, we must depart "from the ecological point of view" as Finke (2001: 87) said, not from a mere "logical point of view" in the sense of Willard Quine. According to Adam Makkai (1993: 71), "language is not a set of 'objects' but a network of relationships". Lamb's (2000) Neurocognitive linguistics defends the same principle.

There are two advantages in view language as a web of inter-relationships or interactions. The first one is the fact that even departing from language as 'communicative interaction', the system is implied. In fact, in order for a message sent by a speaker to a hearer to be understood by the latter it must have been formulated in a language s/he knows. The second one is that in this case language is not reified, it is not seen as a thing located somewhere and which is an instrument (a thing) to do this or that (to communicate). When we talk about environment of language we are referring to the locus of the inter-relations (interactions) that language is. These interactions take place in the natural, the mental and the social environment of language. When I talked about the characteristics/features of the ecosystem I have already advanced some applications of these inter-relations in laguage studies.

The fact is that Ecosystemic Linguistics complements some tendencies that we can see in Ecolinguistics. It is true that the majority of ecolinguistic investigations are in the realm of environmental questions, of the analysis of the pollutors' and devastators' discourse that try to appear to the public as environment-friendly, among others. A perfunctory look at the collective Ecolinguistics books reveal that circa 62% of them are in the domain of what has been called Critical Ecolinguistics, Environmental Linguistics or Ecocritical Discourse Analysis. Only 38% of them deal with linguistic phenomena departing from concepts of Ecology, i.e., the ecosystem. In the excellent web page www.ecoling.net, moderated by the competent ecolinguist Arran Stibbe, approximately 94% of the contributions are discourse analysis, so that only 6% use the ecological "metaphor". As a matter of fact, this could just as well be done by traditional Discourse Analysis, independently of Ecolinguistics.

Two of the authors on whose ideas I am building the theory of Ecosystemic Linguistics said that Ecolinguistics should not be restricted to environmental discourse analysis and related subjects. Peter Finke (1996: 35, footnoe 9) said: "the opinion of some participants of the Klagenfurt symposium, according to which Ecolinguistics would be opposed to Systemic Linguistics, is not accepted by me nor by Strohner". He goes on to say that "an Ecolinguistics that is not built on the concept of ecosystem has no clear idea of Ecology". Strohner (1996: 58) says that "it would be an unnecessary drawback of Ecolinguistics if it deals with its subject only from the point of view of the destruction of our environment".

I would like to emphasise the name of an author from outside any group who defended something very similar to what I am proposing, namely, Mark Garner. I have seen two of his publications on the subject. The first on is Garner (2004); the other is the article "Language ecology as linguistic theory", published in an Indonsian journal (2005). According to him the full theoretical potential of Haugen's original proposal has not adequately been put to work. One of the reasons for this would be the use of ecological concepts only as metaphors. However, modern "ecological philosophy no longer sees ecology merely as a feature of the natural environment that can serve as a metaphor for other phenomena, but as a distinct way of thinking, with far-reaching implications for many disciplines, including the language sciences" (Garner 2005, p. 1). In his opinion, he most relevant features of this philosphy for language studies are, among others, holism, dinamicity, interactive, and situated.

The concept of 'ecosystem' have been used in several areas of knowledge. Nowadays we hear about 'ecosystemic ecology' and, for the present purposes, 'ecosystemic theory', 'ecosystemic thinking', besides 'systems theory', 'systemic thinking' and so on. In the realm of health expressions such as 'ecosystemic theory of communication' is relatively common, generally reporting to Gregory Bateson. In other words, Ecosystemic Linguistics came in a widespread international movement that sees reality as an immense web of inter-relationships (interactions), as is the case with biological 'ecosystem'.

In order to practice Ecosystemic Linguistics adequately we must consider every linguistic phenomenon as part of a 'linguistc ecosystem', i.e., as part of an unending web of interactions. The task of the ecolinguist is to delimit a certain sector of this web in order to examine it even microscopically, if needed. This sector that becomes the focus of interest in the moment of investigation is the result of an epistemological delimitation (coup épistemologique in French), resulting from a specific way of looking at the object of study. In the case of language studies, we can see that any phenomena is primarily in the fundamental ecosystem of language. This consists of a group of individuals, or a people (P), together with the inter-relations that take place between any individual and the place or territory (T) where they live as well as between any two indivuals. These inter-relations are their language. It is inside this linguistic ecosystem that we can ask the fundamental questions about language, namely, 'what is language?', 'is language a social, a mental or a natural phemenonon?", 'what is the position of language in the human species?" and so on. If we consider Ecolinguistics as the study of the relationships between language and environment, we must make explicit what is this environment. To begin with, there is the fundamental environment of language, whose locus is the the fundamental ecosystem of language. In this case it corresponds to P and T together, taken as universal categories. P is not a specific people living in a spefecific territory, but an abstraction. For example, when we talk about the relatonships between language and world, 'world' corresponds to P and T. Or, when we say that for there to be a language the pre-requisite is the existence of a 'people' living somewhere that speaks it. This is not the same as to say that the Kamayurá people (P) lives inside the Xingur River Reservation (T), and speaks the language (L) of the same name. In figure 1 below, we can see a graphic representation of the fundamental ecosystem of language, where the index 0 is destined to show that it should not be confused with the 'natural ecosystem of language' (see below). We have already seen that the 'fundamental ecosystem of language', or 'community' in common sense, of language may be regarded from the perspective of 'speech community' and of 'language community'. The discontinuous line indicates that there is no direct relation between L and T. This relation is always through P.

    P0
 /     \
L0---T0
Fundamental Ecosystem of Language
Community
Fig. 1

Another reason for calling this language ecosystem fundamental is the fact that it gives birth to three more specific ones. The first is the natural ecosystem of language, made up of a specific people, living in a specific territory (T) and speaking its specific language, as the case of the Kamayurá people mentioned above. It is a concrete group of individuals, inhabiting the Xingu River Reservation and speaking Kamayurá language. In the same way that the Icelanders (P1) inhabits Iceland (T1), speaking Icelandic (L1). This languistic ecosystem corresponds to what the lay-person thinks of language. Whenever s/he hears the name of a language s/he does not know, his/her first question is: 'Which people speaks this language?'. Upon hearing the answer, s/he wants to know where this people live. Everything in language that has to do with nature belongs here. For instance, its relations with the physical world, endoecological aspects such as phonetics and so one. Inside this ecosystem we find the natural environment of language, namely, P1 e T1, as concrete beings. It is shown in figure 2, where the index 1 distinguishes it from the fundamental ecosystem of language. As in the previous figure, the segmented line indicates that there is no direct relation between language and the world, here represented as T1.

    P1
  /    \
L1---T1
Fundamental Ecosystem of Language
Community
Fig. 1

When we focus our attention on each (or any) individual of the population (people) we see that language was formed, is stored and processed in their brain/mind. The linguistic inter-relations or interactions inside these brains (or minds) are precisely in the neural connexions. It is the mental ecosystem of language, shown in figure 3. In this figure L2 represents language as a mental phemenon, as a set of mental interactions (grammar + vocabulary, rules of interaction?), P1 stands for the mind as the brain activity, namely, whereas P2 corresponds to the individual of the the brain of each individual of the population. These brains are the locus of 'mental language'. In this case, the mental environment of language is P2 plus T2. Again, the segmented line indicates that there is no direct relation between language as a 'set of patterns of interaction' and the individual brains. This relation is always mediated by the mind, the mental interactions.

      P2
    /    \
  L2---T2
Mental Ecosystem of Language
Fig. 3

Finally, if we see language as a social phemenon (here represented by L3), as Haugen did as a sociolinguist that he was, we can see that it is part of the population as a group of individuals organized socially (P3), whose totality makes up society (T3). L3, P3 and T3, together, form the social ecosystem of language, represented infigure 4. In this case the social environment of language is P3 and T3. As in the previous cases, the segmented line indicates that there is no direct relation between language as a social phenomenon and society. It is always mediated by the totality of individuals that constitutes society.

    P3
 /     \
L3---T3
Social Ecosystem of Language
Fig. 4

The four figures above suggest that when we talk about 'environment of language' we are referring to at least four different things, corresponding to four different ways of looking at language. They are anwers to four different questions. If the investigator asks a fundamental question as, for instance, wether language is a generic human way of interacting, the answer is yes. After having this fundamental answer, he may want to know whether language is a natural, a mental or a social phenomenon. All three answers will be affirmative. We can study language from any of these points of view. In other words, ecolinguistically language is all this at the same time. It is a biopsychosocial phenomenon.

With all that in mind, and taking into consideration what has been published in collective books, I see that Ecolinguistics presents at least the following subareas and/or lines of research (I mention only a few of them, among many others).

1. Critical Ecolinguistics (see Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001: 175-290)
2. Ecocritical Discourse Analysis (Fill, Penz & Trampe 2002: 239-412; Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001: 241-290)
3. Environmental Linguistics (see Mühlhäusler 2003; Harré, Brockmeier & Mühlhäusler 1998; Ramos 2009)
4. Dialectical Ecolinguistics (Fill, Penz & Trampe 2002: 415-461; Døør & Bang 2007)
5. Ecossistemic Linguistics (Finke 1996; Trampe 1990; Strohner 1996; Bastardas i Boada 2000; Couto 2007 e 2009; Brasília School of Ecolinguistics)
6. Language Ecology / Ecology of Language (Haugen 1972; Fill, Penz, Trampe 2002: 121-236; Couto 2009; Calvet 1999 etc.): according to Haugen's original proposal.
7. Linguistic Ethnoecology (originally proposed in Couto 2007: 219-280; see also Maffi 2001)
8. The Ecology of Language Evolution (see Mufwene 2001; Couto 2007: 296-307; 2009: 61-82)
9. The Ecology of Language Acquisition (Kramsch 2002; Leather & van Dam 2003)
10. Biodiversity and Linguodiversisity (Maffi 2001).

We could also include Applied Linguistics (Fill, Trampe & Penz 2007) as well as related disciplines such as Ecosemiotics (Nöth 1998, Couto 2007: 423-433) and Ecocriticism (Glotfelty & Fromm 1996; Couto 2007: 434-442).

This list is certainly incomplete in view of the diversity of research interests that can be seen in the above collective works as well as in conferences. We have seen that Ecolinguistics sees its object as non-linearly ordered, non-closed and not simply composed of independent parts. In other words, it looks for a holistic view of language phenomena. In this case, somebody in a skeptical and critical mood could ask if if intends to be a 'theory of everything' linguistics. As a matter o fact, Ecolinguistics is a new point of view from which it is possible to study the phenomena in question. The expression 'point of view' must be emphisized. It is a new way of seeing the world. So that, in order to be good ecolinguists it is necessary to change our way of looking at the world at large. In this vein, to practice science from a Cartesian-Newtonian perspective is to act as somebody who only sees the world through a window. This person manages to see few things, but in detail, microscopically. To practice science from the ecological point of view, as Peter Finke suggested, is like to place oneself on top of the house, from where one can see many things, holistically, although it is impossible to see and describe details of any of them. In this case, we are in syc with the new world-view introduced by Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics as early as the second decade of 20th century. It would mean being in sync with more recent theories, such as Systems Theory, Chaos Theory as well as the tiny details offered by the mathematics of fractals. As Löwy (1978) said, unfortunately from an ideological perspective, there are privileged points of view, as is the case with the top of the house and of the mountain. Whoever places himself/herself there has an all-inclusive view of his/her object of study. If he/she needs to see some detail of one specific sector of this global landscape, he/she can zoom in using one of the several subareas of linguistics (phonology, syntax etc.) and even of other sciences if needed. In this case, it is possible to study fine details of the object in question. After having the desired results, the investigator can zoom out, and go back to the top of the house. There he/she can evaluate these details in the framework of the holistic view. That is to say, he/she can study a tree (or even parts of it), but not forgetting that it is part of a forest.

This procedure has some serious methodological implications. After my presentation at the Graz Conference (Graz, 2010), Josh Nash asked me which metodology we could use when doing field work. In other words, what would an 'ecolinguistic methodology' look like? Without much thinking, I answered that it would be given by the object of investigation. After having answered him, I became afraid of having said a nonsense. Later on, after reflecting more deeply on my answer, I concluded that there is no other way out. If our discipline is holistic, and looks for help from specialized knowledge and technicians, it must necessarily be trans-, inter- and multidisciplinary. As well known, each specialized model of analysis has its specific methodology.

In this case, if we want to talk about 'ecolinguistic methodology', it is multi-methodological. In other words, the ecolinguistic investigator uses the methodology of the specific discipline that meets his necessities of the moment. When he/she goes back to his/her holistic perspective, he/she does not need this regional methodology any more. The procedure of analysis is wholly ecological, ecosystemic. We could call this procedure a kind of 'hypermethodology", or 'supermethodology'. It is like the engineer who disigns cars. The specialist in particular disciplines is like the mechanic. There are moments in which we need the latter in order to repair a flat tire. However, as soon it is repaired, the engineer assumes his true holistc stance, from where he has an idea of the whole functioning of the vehicle.

I would like to add that Ecolinguistics does not transpose ecological concepts into language studies in a mechanical and naive way, as is sometimes said. At least Ecosystemic Linguistics does not use these concepts as metaphors, as most other ecolinguists do. As a matter of fact, we do ecology directly. In other words, in our view there are at least two types of Ecology, namely, Biological Ecology and Linguistic Ecology, or Ecological Linguistcs, better known as Ecolinguistics. All our scientific, methodological and heuristic tools are taken from the central concept of ecology, which is the 'ecosystem'. Therefore, the name Ecosystemic Linguistics came out naturally.

Finally, we from the Brasília School of Ecolinguistics follow a special line of research in the realm of Ecolinguistics called Ecosystemic Linguistics. In other words, we do not restrict ourselves to analyse critically environmental or antienvironmental discourses. We do it too. However, we are of the opinion that that could just as well be done by regular Discourse Analysis. So much so that many European ecolinguists cite Norman Fairclough very frequently. In our opinion, what makes Ecolinguistics different from other linguistic disciplines is the fact that the former can study any linguistic phenomena by seeing them as an 'ecosystem' (linguistic ecosystem) or being part of one. We think that Ecolinguistics should study language not only in its exoecology (as defended by Haugen 1972) but also in its endoecology. This is why our special branch of Ecolinguistics came to be called Ecosystemic Linguistics.

References
Bang, Jørgen Christian & Jørgen Døør. 2007. Language, ecology and society. Londres: Continuum.
Bastardas i Boada, Albert. 2000. Ecologia de les llengües. Barcelona: Proa.
Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1999. Pour une écologie des langues du monde. Paris: Plon.
Catton, William R. & Riley E. Dunlap. A New Ecological Paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American behavioral scientist 24 (1), 1980, pp. 15-47.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1979. Sincronia, diacronia e história. Rio de Janeiro: Presença/EDUSP.
Couto, Hildo Honório do. 1982. Lingüística e semiótica relacional. Brasília: Thesaurus.
_______. 2007. Ecolinguística: estudo das relações entre língua e meio ambiente. Brasília: Thesaurus.
_______. 2009. Ecologia, linguística e ecolinguística. São Paulo: Contexto.
Denison, Norman. 2001. A linguistic ecology for Europe? In: Fill & Mühlhäusler (orgs.): 75-83.
Döring, Martin; Hermine Penz & Wilhelm Trampe (orgs.). Language, signs and nature: Ecolinguistic dimendions of environmental discourse. Tübingen: Stauffenvurg.
Fill, Alwin. 1996. Sprachökologie und Ökolinguistik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
_______; Mühlhäusler, Peter (orgs.). The ecolinguistics reader. Londres: Continuum.
Fill, Alwin; Penz, Hermine & Trampe, Wilhelm. 2002. Colourful green ideas. Berna: Peter Lang.
Finke, Peter. 1996. Sprache als missing link zwischen natürlichen und kulturellen Ökosystemen. Überlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung der Sprachökologie. In: Fill (org.): 27-48.
_______. 2001. Identity and manifoldness. In: Fill & Mühlhäusler (orgs.): 84-90.
Garner, Mark. 2004. Language: An ecological view. Oxford: Peter Lang.
_______. 2005. Language ecology as linguistic theory. Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra vol. 17, n. 33: 91-101 (Online: pt.scribd.com/doc/27175229/).
Glotfelty, Cheryll & Harold Fromm (orgs.) 1996. The ecocriticism reader. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press.
Harré, Rom, Jens Brockmeier & Peter Mühlhäusler. 1998. Greenspeak: A study of environmental discourse. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 325-339. Também em Fill & Mühlhäusler (2001: 57-66).
Kramsch, Claire. 2002. Language acquisition and language socialization. Londres: Continuum.
Lamb, Sydney M. 1966. Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
_______. 2000. Neuro-cognitive structure in the interplay of language and thought. In: Pütz, Martin & Marjolijn H. Vespoor (orgs.) Explorations in linguistic relativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, p. 173-196.
Leather, Jonathan & van Dam, Jet (orgs.). 2003. Ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lowy, Michael. 1978. Método dialético e teoria política. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 2a. ed.
Maffi, Luisa (org.). 2001. On biocultural diversity: linking language, knowledge and the environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Makkai, Adam. 1993. Ecolinguistics: ¿Toward a new **paradigm** for the science of language? Londres: Pinter Publishers.
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nöth, Winfried. 1998. Ecosemiotics. Sign systems studies 26.332-343 (www.ut.ee/SOSE/noeth.htm)
Odum, Eugene P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 3. ed.
Ramos, Rui. 2009. O discurso do ambiente na imprensa e na escola: uma abordagem linguística. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian e Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, 2009
Steffenson, Sune Vork. 2008. The ecology of grammar: Dialectical, holistic and autopoietic principles in Ecolinguistics. In: Döring, Penz & Trampe (orgs.): 89-105.
Strohner, Hans. 1996. Die neue Systemlinguistik: Zu einer ökosystemischen Sprachwissenschaft. In: Fill (org.): 49-58.
Trampe, Wilhelm. 1990. Ökolinguische Linguistik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

ECOLINGUISTICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK