Questõesde UNIFESP 2021

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?

    How things have changed.

    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2.____________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.

    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

Cruz na porta da tabacaria!
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Cruz na porta da tabacaria!
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

    A palavra sonho, do latim somnium, significa muitas coisas diferentes, todas vivenciadas durante a vigília, e não durante o sono. Realizei “o sonho da minha vida”, “meu sonho de consumo” são frases usadas cotidianamente pelas pessoas para dizer que pretendem ou conseguiram alcançar algo. Todo mundo tem um sonho, no sentido de plano futuro. Todo mundo deseja algo que não tem. Por que será que o sonho, fenômeno normalmente noturno que tanto pode evocar o prazer quanto o medo, é justamente a palavra usada para designar tudo aquilo que se quer ter?

    

    O repertório publicitário contemporâneo não tem dúvidas de que o sonho é a força motriz de nossos comportamentos. Desejo é o sinônimo mais preciso da palavra “sonho”. [...] Na área de desembarque de um aeroporto nos Estados Unidos, uma foto enorme de um casal belo e sorridente, velejando num mar caribenho em dia ensolarado, sob a frase enigmática: “Aonde seus sonhos o levarão?”, embaixo o logotipo da empresa de cartão de crédito. Deduz-se do anúncio que os sonhos são como veleiros, capazes de levar-nos a lugares idílicos, perfeitos, altamente… desejáveis. As equações “sonho é igual a desejo que é igual a dinheiro” têm como variável oculta a liberdade de ir, ser e principalmente ter, liberdade que até os mais miseráveis podem experimentar no mundo de regras frouxas do sonho noturno, mas que no sonho diurno é privilégio apenas dos detentores de um mágico cartão plástico.

    A rotina do trabalho diário e a falta de tempo para dormir e sonhar, que acometem a maioria dos trabalhadores, são cruciais para o mal-estar da civilização contemporânea. É gritante o contraste entre a relevância motivacional do sonho e sua banalização no mundo industrial globalizado. [...] A indústria da saúde do sono, um setor que cresce aceleradamente, tem valor estimado entre 30 bilhões e 40 bilhões de dólares. Mesmo assim a insônia impera. Se o tempo é sempre escasso, se despertamos diariamente com o toque insistente do despertador, ainda sonolentos e já atrasados para cumprir compromissos que se renovam ao infinito, se tão poucos se lembram que sonham pela simples falta de oportunidade de contemplar a vida interior, quando a insônia grassa e o bocejo se impõe, chega-se a duvidar da sobrevivência do sonho.

    E, no entanto, sonha-se. Sonha-se muito e a granel, sonha-se sofregamente apesar das luzes e dos ruídos da cidade, da incessante faina da vida e da tristeza das perspectivas. Dirá a formiga cética que quem sonha assim tão livre é o artista, cigarra de fábula que vive de brisa. [...] Na peça teatral A vida é sonho, o espanhol Pedro Calderón de la Barca dramatizou a liberdade de construir o próprio destino. O sonho é a imaginação sem freio nem controle, solta para temer, criar, perder e achar.

(O oráculo da noite: a história e a ciência do sonho, 2019.)

    A palavra sonho, do latim somnium, significa muitas coisas diferentes, todas vivenciadas durante a vigília, e não durante o sono. Realizei “o sonho da minha vida”, “meu sonho de consumo” são frases usadas cotidianamente pelas pessoas para dizer que pretendem ou conseguiram alcançar algo. Todo mundo tem um sonho, no sentido de plano futuro. Todo mundo deseja algo que não tem. Por que será que o sonho, fenômeno normalmente noturno que tanto pode evocar o prazer quanto o medo, é justamente a palavra usada para designar tudo aquilo que se quer ter?

    

    O repertório publicitário contemporâneo não tem dúvidas de que o sonho é a força motriz de nossos comportamentos. Desejo é o sinônimo mais preciso da palavra “sonho”. [...] Na área de desembarque de um aeroporto nos Estados Unidos, uma foto enorme de um casal belo e sorridente, velejando num mar caribenho em dia ensolarado, sob a frase enigmática: “Aonde seus sonhos o levarão?”, embaixo o logotipo da empresa de cartão de crédito. Deduz-se do anúncio que os sonhos são como veleiros, capazes de levar-nos a lugares idílicos, perfeitos, altamente… desejáveis. As equações “sonho é igual a desejo que é igual a dinheiro” têm como variável oculta a liberdade de ir, ser e principalmente ter, liberdade que até os mais miseráveis podem experimentar no mundo de regras frouxas do sonho noturno, mas que no sonho diurno é privilégio apenas dos detentores de um mágico cartão plástico.

    A rotina do trabalho diário e a falta de tempo para dormir e sonhar, que acometem a maioria dos trabalhadores, são cruciais para o mal-estar da civilização contemporânea. É gritante o contraste entre a relevância motivacional do sonho e sua banalização no mundo industrial globalizado. [...] A indústria da saúde do sono, um setor que cresce aceleradamente, tem valor estimado entre 30 bilhões e 40 bilhões de dólares. Mesmo assim a insônia impera. Se o tempo é sempre escasso, se despertamos diariamente com o toque insistente do despertador, ainda sonolentos e já atrasados para cumprir compromissos que se renovam ao infinito, se tão poucos se lembram que sonham pela simples falta de oportunidade de contemplar a vida interior, quando a insônia grassa e o bocejo se impõe, chega-se a duvidar da sobrevivência do sonho.

    E, no entanto, sonha-se. Sonha-se muito e a granel, sonha-se sofregamente apesar das luzes e dos ruídos da cidade, da incessante faina da vida e da tristeza das perspectivas. Dirá a formiga cética que quem sonha assim tão livre é o artista, cigarra de fábula que vive de brisa. [...] Na peça teatral A vida é sonho, o espanhol Pedro Calderón de la Barca dramatizou a liberdade de construir o próprio destino. O sonho é a imaginação sem freio nem controle, solta para temer, criar, perder e achar.

(O oráculo da noite: a história e a ciência do sonho, 2019.)

Cruz na porta da tabacaria!
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.

    A palavra sonho, do latim somnium, significa muitas coisas diferentes, todas vivenciadas durante a vigília, e não durante o sono. Realizei “o sonho da minha vida”, “meu sonho de consumo” são frases usadas cotidianamente pelas pessoas para dizer que pretendem ou conseguiram alcançar algo. Todo mundo tem um sonho, no sentido de plano futuro. Todo mundo deseja algo que não tem. Por que será que o sonho, fenômeno normalmente noturno que tanto pode evocar o prazer quanto o medo, é justamente a palavra usada para designar tudo aquilo que se quer ter?

    

    O repertório publicitário contemporâneo não tem dúvidas de que o sonho é a força motriz de nossos comportamentos. Desejo é o sinônimo mais preciso da palavra “sonho”. [...] Na área de desembarque de um aeroporto nos Estados Unidos, uma foto enorme de um casal belo e sorridente, velejando num mar caribenho em dia ensolarado, sob a frase enigmática: “Aonde seus sonhos o levarão?”, embaixo o logotipo da empresa de cartão de crédito. Deduz-se do anúncio que os sonhos são como veleiros, capazes de levar-nos a lugares idílicos, perfeitos, altamente… desejáveis. As equações “sonho é igual a desejo que é igual a dinheiro” têm como variável oculta a liberdade de ir, ser e principalmente ter, liberdade que até os mais miseráveis podem experimentar no mundo de regras frouxas do sonho noturno, mas que no sonho diurno é privilégio apenas dos detentores de um mágico cartão plástico.

    A rotina do trabalho diário e a falta de tempo para dormir e sonhar, que acometem a maioria dos trabalhadores, são cruciais para o mal-estar da civilização contemporânea. É gritante o contraste entre a relevância motivacional do sonho e sua banalização no mundo industrial globalizado. [...] A indústria da saúde do sono, um setor que cresce aceleradamente, tem valor estimado entre 30 bilhões e 40 bilhões de dólares. Mesmo assim a insônia impera. Se o tempo é sempre escasso, se despertamos diariamente com o toque insistente do despertador, ainda sonolentos e já atrasados para cumprir compromissos que se renovam ao infinito, se tão poucos se lembram que sonham pela simples falta de oportunidade de contemplar a vida interior, quando a insônia grassa e o bocejo se impõe, chega-se a duvidar da sobrevivência do sonho.

    E, no entanto, sonha-se. Sonha-se muito e a granel, sonha-se sofregamente apesar das luzes e dos ruídos da cidade, da incessante faina da vida e da tristeza das perspectivas. Dirá a formiga cética que quem sonha assim tão livre é o artista, cigarra de fábula que vive de brisa. [...] Na peça teatral A vida é sonho, o espanhol Pedro Calderón de la Barca dramatizou a liberdade de construir o próprio destino. O sonho é a imaginação sem freio nem controle, solta para temer, criar, perder e achar.

(O oráculo da noite: a história e a ciência do sonho, 2019.)

    A palavra sonho, do latim somnium, significa muitas coisas diferentes, todas vivenciadas durante a vigília, e não durante o sono. Realizei “o sonho da minha vida”, “meu sonho de consumo” são frases usadas cotidianamente pelas pessoas para dizer que pretendem ou conseguiram alcançar algo. Todo mundo tem um sonho, no sentido de plano futuro. Todo mundo deseja algo que não tem. Por que será que o sonho, fenômeno normalmente noturno que tanto pode evocar o prazer quanto o medo, é justamente a palavra usada para designar tudo aquilo que se quer ter?

    

    O repertório publicitário contemporâneo não tem dúvidas de que o sonho é a força motriz de nossos comportamentos. Desejo é o sinônimo mais preciso da palavra “sonho”. [...] Na área de desembarque de um aeroporto nos Estados Unidos, uma foto enorme de um casal belo e sorridente, velejando num mar caribenho em dia ensolarado, sob a frase enigmática: “Aonde seus sonhos o levarão?”, embaixo o logotipo da empresa de cartão de crédito. Deduz-se do anúncio que os sonhos são como veleiros, capazes de levar-nos a lugares idílicos, perfeitos, altamente… desejáveis. As equações “sonho é igual a desejo que é igual a dinheiro” têm como variável oculta a liberdade de ir, ser e principalmente ter, liberdade que até os mais miseráveis podem experimentar no mundo de regras frouxas do sonho noturno, mas que no sonho diurno é privilégio apenas dos detentores de um mágico cartão plástico.

    A rotina do trabalho diário e a falta de tempo para dormir e sonhar, que acometem a maioria dos trabalhadores, são cruciais para o mal-estar da civilização contemporânea. É gritante o contraste entre a relevância motivacional do sonho e sua banalização no mundo industrial globalizado. [...] A indústria da saúde do sono, um setor que cresce aceleradamente, tem valor estimado entre 30 bilhões e 40 bilhões de dólares. Mesmo assim a insônia impera. Se o tempo é sempre escasso, se despertamos diariamente com o toque insistente do despertador, ainda sonolentos e já atrasados para cumprir compromissos que se renovam ao infinito, se tão poucos se lembram que sonham pela simples falta de oportunidade de contemplar a vida interior, quando a insônia grassa e o bocejo se impõe, chega-se a duvidar da sobrevivência do sonho.

    E, no entanto, sonha-se. Sonha-se muito e a granel, sonha-se sofregamente apesar das luzes e dos ruídos da cidade, da incessante faina da vida e da tristeza das perspectivas. Dirá a formiga cética que quem sonha assim tão livre é o artista, cigarra de fábula que vive de brisa. [...] Na peça teatral A vida é sonho, o espanhol Pedro Calderón de la Barca dramatizou a liberdade de construir o próprio destino. O sonho é a imaginação sem freio nem controle, solta para temer, criar, perder e achar.

(O oráculo da noite: a história e a ciência do sonho, 2019.)

    — Agora você vai me contar uma história de amor — disse o rapaz à moça. — Quero ouvir uma história de amor em que entrem caravelas, pedras preciosas e satélites artificiais.

    — Pois não — respondeu a moça, que acabara de concluir o mestrado de contador de histórias, e estava com a imaginação na ponta da língua. — Era uma vez um país onde só havia água, eram águas e mais águas, e o governo como tudo mais se fazia em embarcações atracadas ou em movimento, conforme o tempo. Osmundo mantinha uma grande indústria de barcos, mas não era feliz, porque Sertória, objeto dos seus sonhos, se recusava a casar com ele. Osmundo ofereceu-lhe um belo navio embandeirado, que ela recusou. Só aceitaria uma frota de dez caravelas, para si e para seus familiares.

    Ora, ninguém sabia fazer caravelas, era um tipo de embarcação há muito fora de uso. Osmundo apresentou um mau produto, que Sertória não aceitou, enumerando os defeitos, a começar pelas velas latinas, que de latinas não tinham um centavo. Osmundo, desesperado, pensou em afogar-se, o que fez sem êxito, pois desceu no fundo das águas e lá encontrou um cofre cheio de esmeraldas, topázios, rubis, diamantes e o mais que você imagina. Voltou à tona para oferecê-lo à rígida Sertória, que virou o rosto. Nada a fazer, pensou Osmundo; vou transformar-me em satélite artificial. Mas os satélites artificiais ainda não tinham sido inventados. Continuou humilde satélite de Sertória, que ultimamente passeava de uma lancha para outra, levando-o preso a um cordão de seda, com a inscrição “Amor imortal”. Acabou.

    — Mas que significa isso? — perguntou o moço, insatisfeito. — Não entendi nada.

    — Nem eu — respondeu a moça —, mas os contos devem ser contados, e não entendidos; exatamente como a vida.