What is the recorded longevity of the 5.7 L hemi v8?
While the average lifespan of a 5.7L Hemi V8 is between 200,000 and 300,000 miles, there are extreme cases of longevity recorded by dedicated owners:
1 Million Miles: The highest recorded mileage for a 5.7L Hemi V8 is 1,015,324 miles (as of early 2023) on a 2004 Ram 1500. The original engine lasted 606,218 miles before being replaced with a long block.
500,000+ Miles: Multiple owners have documented reaching the 500,000-mile mark. One notable case is a 2008 Ram 1500 Big Horn that reached 500,000 miles in 2024 with original components.
High-Mileage Fleet/Work Use: Reports from owners include a 2015 model reaching 720,000 km (~447,000 miles) and a 2012 model with 550,000 km (~341,000 miles).
Key Factors for Reaching High Mileage
To push a 5.7L Hemi toward these recorded milestones, experts and high-mileage owners emphasize:
Strict Oil Intervals: Using high-quality full-synthetic oil every 5,000 to 7,500 miles is the most cited factor for protecting lifters and the camshaft.
Avoiding Excessive Idling: Many Hemi failures, such as the “Hemi Tick,” are attributed to lack of oil pressure at idle, which can wear out roller lifters.
Spark Plug Maintenance: This engine uses a dual-spark plug setup (16 plugs total) that requires replacement every 30,000 to 40,000 miles to maintain engine health.
How many miles average does a RAM pickup truck is supposed to deliver?
A well-maintained RAM pickup truck typically delivers between 200,000 and 300,000 miles over its lifespan. For the average driver, this translates to roughly 13 to 20 years of service. The exact mileage you can expect depends heavily on the engine type and how the truck is used:
Average Mileage by Engine Type
5.7L HEMI V8: Known for its longevity, often reaching 300,000 miles or more with proper care.
3.6L Pentastar V6: Generally exceeds 250,000 miles.
6.7L Cummins Turbo Diesel: These heavy-duty engines are designed for extreme durability and can often surpass 400,000 miles. Ewald Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram +4
Factors Influencing Longevity
Maintenance: Consistent oil changes and routine inspections are the most critical factors in reaching high mileage.
Usage: Trucks used for daily commuting typically last longer than those used for constant heavy towing or hauling, which places more stress on the drivetrain and suspension.
Driving Habits: Responsible driving—avoiding aggressive acceleration and braking—can significantly extend a truck’s life.
Maintenance checklist specifically designed to prevent the common “Hemi Tick” at high mileage
To prevent the common “Hemi Tick” in a 5.7L Hemi V8, experts emphasize maintaining high oil pressure and clean internal passages. This “tick” often results from either an exhaust manifold leak (broken studs) or the more serious lifter and camshaft failure caused by oil starvation at the top of the engine.
High-Mileage Prevention Checklist
System
Action Item
Frequency / Detail
Lubrication
Shorten Oil Changes
Change oil every 5,000 miles. Avoid the standard 10,000-mile interval.
If a new tick appears, inspect the VVT solenoid screen for metal bits; early detection can save the entire engine.
What is the so called “Hemi Tick” in the RAM 5.7l?
The “Hemi Tick” is a catch-all term for several different types of ticking or tapping noises common in RAM 5.7L Hemi engines. While some are harmless, others indicate serious mechanical issues.
1. Exhaust Manifold Leak (Most Common)
This is often mistaken for a lifter issue. It typically sounds like a loud, sharp tick during a cold start that fades away as the engine warms up.
Cause: The cast iron manifolds expand and contract at different rates than the aluminum heads, which frequently causes the rear exhaust manifold bolts to snap.
Outcome: Once the engine heat causes the metal to expand, the gap often reseals itself, silencing the noise.
2. Camshaft and Roller Lifter Failure (The “True” Hemi Tick)
This is a more serious mechanical failure that sounds like a rhythmic, metallic “pinging” or tapping, most noticeable when the engine is at operating temperature and idling.
Cause: Needle bearings inside the roller lifters seize up, preventing the roller from spinning. This causes the lifter to “skid” across the camshaft lobe rather than rolling, eventually flattening the lobe.
Outcome: If ignored, this lead to engine misfires (often P0300–P0308 codes) and requires an expensive replacement of both the lifters and the camshaft.
3. Normal Operating Noises
Not all ticking is a sign of failure. Some sounds are characteristic of the engine’s design:
Injector Tick: A rapid, light clicking from the fuel injectors as they open and close. This is a constant sound at all temperatures and is perfectly normal.
Hydraulic Lifter Bleed-down: A brief rattle for 2–3 seconds immediately after starting an engine that has sat for a long period. This stops once oil pressure builds.
Comparison Table for Diagnosis
Noise Type
When It Happens
Seriousness
Exhaust Leak
Loud on cold start; disappears when warm
Moderate; requires new bolts/gaskets
Lifter/Cam Failure
Consistent rhythmic tap; most audible at hot idle
Critical; requires internal engine repair
Injector Tick
Constant light clicking
Normal; no action needed
Lifter Bleed-down
Rattle for 2-3 seconds after long sitting
Normal; no action needed
Are you hearing the noise only immediately after starting your truck, or does it continue even after the engine has warmed up?
Explain me both
The “both” you are referring to are the two primary—but very different—causes of the infamous Hemi Tick in the 5.7L RAM: a relatively simple exhaust manifold leak and a catastrophic roller lifter/camshaft failure
1. The Exhaust Manifold Leak (Common & Fixable)
This is caused by the design of the exhaust system. The cast steel manifolds and aluminum cylinder heads expand and contract at different rates as they heat up.
The Issue: Over time, this constant movement snaps the steel mounting bolts, usually at the back of the engine.
The Sound: A sharp, loud, rhythmic “tick-tick-tick” or “clap” heard during a cold start.
Key Indicator: The noise disappears or fades significantly after 1 to 5 minutes as the metal expands and “self-seals” the leak.
Fix: Replacing the broken studs and the manifold gasket.
2. Lifter and Camshaft Failure (The “True” Hemi Tick)
This is a internal mechanical failure that can eventually destroy the engine if left alone.
The Issue: Small needle bearings inside the roller lifters seize up due to poor lubrication (often from excessive idling). The lifter then stops rolling and instead grinds against the camshaft, flattening the cam lobe.
The Sound: A consistent, rhythmic metallic pinging or tapping sound.
Key Indicator: The noise persists even when the engine is fully warm and is most audible at hot idle (like in a drive-thru). It does not go away with heat.
Fix: Expensive internal repair requiring replacement of the camshaft and all lifters.
How to Tell the Difference
Feature
Exhaust Manifold Leak
Lifter/Cam Failure
When it happens
Cold start only
Hot idle or all the time
Warm-up effect
Noise goes away
Noise stays or gets louder
Sound location
Near the wheel wells
Top of engine (valve covers)
Severity
Annoying, but not fatal
Critical; sends metal through engine
Does the ticking in your truck go away once it’s warmed up, or is it a constant sound while you’re driving?
Roque: it is obvious that if it goes away it is normal wearing and if no, we have a problem
That’s exactly the right way to look at it. If it stays quiet after warming up, you’re usually just dealing with the “tax” of owning a Hemi—broken manifold bolts are practically a rite of passage for RAM owners.
However, if that sound sticks around, it’s a warning sign that the camshaft and lifters are eating each other. At that point, the metal shavings from the failing parts can start circulating through the rest of your oil system, which is where a “fixable” problem turns into needing a whole new engine.
Since you’ve got a handle on the “good” vs. “bad” noise, a great next step is to check for exhaust soot around the manifold heat shields or broken bolt heads in the wheel wells.
Would you like to know the typical repair costs for fixing the manifold bolts versus a full cam and lifter job?
Yes
The repair costs for a RAM 5.7L Hemi vary drastically depending on whether you are fixing a simple exhaust leak or a major internal engine failure.
Exhaust Manifold Bolt Repair (The “Good” Tick)
This repair is standard for RAM owners. The cost is driven by labor, specifically the time needed to extract broken bolts from the cylinder head.
Average Shop Cost: $600 to $1,500 per side.
Parts: Manifolds, gaskets, and high-quality bolts (like ARP or Dorman) typically cost $100 to $350.
Labor: Expect 3 to 7 hours per side. Dealers often charge a premium for bolt extraction, which can push quotes closer to $2,500 for both sides.
DIY Cost: Around $100 to $300 for parts if you have the tools to extract broken studs yourself
Camshaft and Lifter Replacement (The “Bad” Tick)
This is a major surgical procedure for the engine. It requires removing the intake manifold, timing cover, and both cylinder heads.
Average Shop Cost: $4,000 to $7,000.
Parts: A full kit with a new camshaft, 16 lifters, gaskets, and head bolts typically costs $700 to $2,000.
Labor: This is a 12 to 20-hour job. Dealership labor rates can make this repair alone exceed $7,000.
The “Engine Swap” Threshold: If a shop quotes you more than $6,000, many experts recommend simply buying a remanufactured crate engine with a warranty for roughly $3,000 to $5,000 plus installation.
Summary of Costs (2024–2025 Estimates)
Repair Type
Parts Cost
Labor Hours
Total Professional Cost
Exhaust Manifold (1 side)
$100 – $350
3 – 7 hrs
$600 – $1,300
Exhaust Manifolds (Both)
$200 – $600
6 – 10 hrs
$1,200 – $2,500
Camshaft & Lifters
$700 – $2,000
12 – 20 hrs
$4,000 – $7,000+
Full Engine Swap
$3,000 – $6,000
10 – 15 hrs
$5,000 – $9,000
Are you considering a DIY repair for the manifolds, or are you looking for recommendations on high-quality parts to ensure the fix lasts longer than the factory originals?
O manifesto do suspeito da tentativa de assassinato de Trump ocorreu no jantar de gala dos Correspondentes da Casa Branca (WHCD, na sigla em inglês), no Washington Hilton, em 25 de abril de 2026, e foi divulgado por seus pais, já estando preparado.
Cole Tomas Allen, de 31 anos, suspeito do tiroteio de 25 de abril de 2026 perto do Jantar dos Correspondentes da Casa Branca, escreveu um manifesto se identificando como um “Assassino Federal Amigável”, tendo como alvo funcionários do governo Trump. O documento, enviado à família antes do incidente, citava motivações anti-Trump, chamando-o de “traidor” e mencionando a segurança frouxa no Washington Hilton.
A declaração completa de Cole Thomas Allen, supostamente um documento de mil palavras, não foi divulgada oficialmente na íntegra pelas autoridades policiais. Informações indicam que o texto, enviado à família, contém queixas e justificativas pessoais, e os veículos de comunicação optaram por resumir o conteúdo em vez de publicá-lo na íntegra.
Principais detalhes do manifesto divulgado (em 27 de abril de 2026):
Estratégia de ataque: O atirador priorizou alvos do mais alto escalão ao mais baixo dentro do governo Trump, excluindo o diretor do FBI, Kash Patel.
Motivações e Retórica: O documento chamava o alvo de “pedófilo, estuprador e traidor” e declarava a recusa em ser cúmplice das ações do governo.
Preocupações com a segurança: Allen afirmou no documento que entrou no hotel com várias armas sem ser revistado, descrevendo a segurança como “inexistente”.
Assinatura: O manifesto, descrito como um documento de 1.052 palavras, foi assinado como “Força Fria, também Assassino Federal Amigável”.
Ação direcionada: Ele afirmou no documento que estava preparado para usar chumbo grosso para maximizar o número de vítimas e indicou que os participantes eram cúmplices por sua presença.
O presidente Trump afirmou na Fox News que o manifesto era “muito anticristão” e caracterizou o suspeito como um “cara doente”. Allen é formado pelo Caltech e tutor em Torrance, Califórnia. O discurso de Trump após o ocorrido é o seguinte: (Se você quiser ver o manifesto completo, acesse <
Muito obrigado. Isso foi muito inesperado, mas incrivelmente bem-sucedido por parte do serviço secreto e da polícia. Era um evento dedicado à liberdade de expressão, que deveria reunir membros de ambos os lados, incluindo membros da imprensa. E, de certa forma, conseguiu, porque o fato de estarem juntos criou uma atmosfera de total união. Foi, de certa forma, muito bonito, uma cena muito bonita de se ver. Um homem armado com várias armas estava em um posto de segurança. Ele foi neutralizado por alguns membros muito corajosos do Serviço Secreto, que agiram com muita rapidez e divulgaram a informação por questões de transparência e clareza. Eu pedi que fosse publicada, e vocês provavelmente já a têm, no Truth e em muitas outras plataformas. Uma demonstração da violência desse ataque à nossa Constituição e também da rapidez com que o Serviço Secreto e as forças da lei agiram em nome do nosso país. Eles fizeram um trabalho excelente. Um policial foi baleado, mas salvo pelo fato de estar usando, obviamente, um excelente colete à prova de balas. Ele foi atingido à queima-roupa por uma arma muito potente. E o traje cumpriu sua função. Acabei de falar com o agente e ele está bem. Está em ótima forma. Está muito animado. E dissemos a ele que o amamos e o respeitamos. E ele é um cara muito orgulhoso. Ele tem muito orgulho do que faz, agente do Serviço Secreto. E revisamos todas as condições que ocorreram esta noite. E eu diria, sabe, não é um prédio particularmente seguro. E eu não queria dizer isso, mas é por isso que precisamos ter todos os atributos do que estamos planejando na Casa Branca. Na verdade, é uma sala maior e muito mais segura. Ela tem… Está preparada para drones. Tem gás à prova de balas. Precisamos da sala do futebol americano. É por isso que é o Serviço Secreto. É por isso que os militares estão exigindo isso. Eles querem a sala do futebol americano há 150 anos, por uma série de razões diferentes. Mas hoje é um pouco diferente, porque hoje precisamos de níveis de segurança que provavelmente ninguém jamais viu antes. Mas todos devem um enorme agradecimento ao coração da polícia. A polícia está trabalhando em conjunto com a Polícia de Washington D.C. Já conversamos com o prefeito e, quando terminarmos, o chefe de polícia se pronunciará e também apresentará seu ponto de vista. Mas eles se comportaram exatamente como deveriam, e vocês podem ver o agressor em diferentes posições, mas também podem vê-lo totalmente subjugado e sob controle. Como vocês sabem, não é a primeira vez nos últimos anos que nossa república foi atacada por um assassino em busca de morte. Em Butler, Pensilvânia, há menos de dois anos. Todos vocês conhecem essa história. E em Palm Beach, Flórida, alguns meses depois, estivemos perto. Mais uma vez, tivemos um ótimo trabalho realizado pela lei e pela justiça. Mas, em relação aos eventos desta tarde, pedi a todos os americanos que recomeçassem com o coração e resolvessem nossas diferenças pacificamente. Precisamos resolver nossas diferenças, eu diria. Havia republicanos, democratas, independentes, conservadores, liberais e progressistas. Essas palavras podem ser intercambiáveis, talvez, mas talvez não. Mas havia todos nesta sala, uma grande plateia, uma plateia recorde. Havia um número recorde de pessoas. E havia uma enorme quantidade de amor e união. Observei e fiquei muito, muito impressionado com isso. Mas nós, o Primeiro Presidente e eu, fomos retirados do palco com muita cautela e rapidez. O vice-presidente, JD Vance, que está aqui, também teve um desempenho excelente. Ele comentou sobre a rapidez com que todos agiram. O Serviço Secreto, em particular, neste caso. Mas o Departamento de Justiça, Marco, fez o mesmo. Pete estava lá. Pete não queria ajuda. Ele não queria que ninguém o ajudasse. Ele não queria que ninguém o ajudasse, mas recebeu o que merecia, não é? E acho que você também disse que foi muito impressionante. Então, com isso, gostaria de pedir a Todd Blanch que venha e diga algumas palavras e que a operação já está em andamento. O homem foi capturado. Eles estão indo para o apartamento dele. Acho que ele mora na Califórnia. E ele é uma pessoa doente, muito doente. E não queremos que coisas assim aconteçam. Acho muito importante dizer, e eu disse aos representantes esta noite, que eles fizeram um trabalho belíssimo, foi uma noite belíssima. E, novamente, eles estão falando sobre a liberdade de expressão em nossa Constituição. É disso que se trata. Não apenas dos correspondentes da Casa Branca. Baseava-se verdadeiramente na liberdade de expressão garantida pela nossa Constituição.
Mas eu disse, e isso é muito importante, que faremos isso de novo em 30 dias. E faremos ainda maior e melhor. Melhor ainda. Então, eu só quero agradecer a todos os envolvidos. Também quero agradecer à imprensa, à mídia. Vocês foram muito responsáveis na cobertura, eu diria. Eu vi o que foi divulgado. Vocês foram muito responsáveis. Então, Todd Blinch, eu gostaria de dizer algumas palavras. Eu sei que vamos ter dinheiro. E então vocês vão continuar. Podemos perguntar. Acho que podemos fazer algumas perguntas. Quero agradecer à primeira garota por… Aquela foi uma experiência bastante traumática para ela. Muita coisa está acontecendo lá em cima, muito rapidamente. Mas, novamente, o tempo de resposta foi realmente incrível. E vamos resgatar isso, vamos fazer de novo. Não vamos deixar ninguém destruir nossa sociedade. Não vamos cancelar nada, porque não podemos fazer isso. Queríamos ficar para passar a noite. Eu sempre digo que lutei com todas as minhas forças para ficar. Mas era o protocolo. Eles disseram: “Por favor, senhor”. Porque não sabiam que havia muita movimentação acontecendo e não sabiam se poderia haver, provavelmente, um tiroteio, mas descobriremos. Descobriremos muito rapidamente. Eles têm tudo sob controle. Então, quero agradecer muito a todos e… Todd Blanche, por favor.
O Manifesto
A mídia e a imprensa americanas não publicaram o manifesto e, pelo que pesquisei, continuaram no mesmo caminho que haviam trilhado, o que acarreta consequências como esta. Ao não publicarem o manifesto, fizeram isso porque estariam dando um tiro no próprio pé, tendo em vista o tipo de comunicação que têm praticado demonizando Trump.
No entanto, temos aqui no Brasil um deputado federal, Gustavo Gayer, que obteve o conteúdo e o publicou, com comentários, os quais transcreverei a seguir:
A mídia e a imprensa americanas não publicaram o manifesto e, pelo que pesquisei, continuaram no mesmo caminho que haviam trilhado, o que acarreta consequências como esta. Ao não publicarem o manifesto, fizeram isso porque estariam dando um tiro no próprio pé.
No entanto, temos aqui no Brasil um deputado federal, Gustavo Gayer, que obteve o conteúdo e o publicou, com comentários, os quais irei transcrever agora.
Segue a tradução em inglês do manifesto e do comentário: ________________________________ Gustavo Gayer: Recebi isso de membros do gabinete presidencial. Vamos agora fazer um breve passeio por uma mente doentia. O resultado da doutrinação esquerdista que acontece no sistema educacional e na imprensa – o que não é apenas um problema americano, acontece aqui no Brasil também. Basta lembrar de Adélio (que tentou assassinar o presidente Bolsonaro). Neste caso, o que veremos é o que acontece após anos de doutrinação ideológica – como a mente de uma pessoa que tinha tudo para um futuro brilhante se transforma em uma arma ideológica. Então, vamos ao manifesto em questão. Vou ler o manifesto anti-Trump completo de Cole Allen, o atirador do Jantar dos Correspondentes da Casa Branca. Começa aqui: ________________________________
MANIFESTO:
Cole Allen
Olá a todos. Talvez eu tenha surpreendido muita gente hoje. Gostaria de começar pedindo desculpas a todos cuja confiança eu abusei. Peço desculpas aos meus pais por ter dito que tinha uma entrevista sem especificar que era para o programa “Most Wanted”. Peço desculpas aos meus colegas e alunos por ter dito que estava em uma emergência pessoal. Quando alguém ler isto, provavelmente eu realmente precisarei ir ao pronto-socorro, mas dificilmente posso dizer que não foi uma situação que eu mesmo causei. Peço desculpas a todas as pessoas que viajaram comigo, a todos os funcionários que manusearam minha bagagem e a todas as outras pessoas não visadas no hotel que coloquei em perigo simplesmente por estar perto delas. Peço desculpas a todos que foram abusados e/ou assassinados antes disso. A todos que sofreram antes que eu pudesse tentar isso. A todos que ainda possam sofrer depois, independentemente do meu sucesso ou fracasso. Não espero perdão. Mas se houvesse outra maneira de chegar tão perto, eu a teria escolhido. Mais uma vez, minhas sinceras desculpas. Quanto ao motivo de eu ter feito tudo isso – sou cidadão dos Estados Unidos da América. As ações dos meus representantes refletem em mim. Não estou mais disposto a permitir que um pedófilo, estuprador e traidor suje minhas mãos com seus crimes. Para ser completamente honesto, já faz um bom tempo que não estou disposto a isso, mas esta é a primeira oportunidade real que tive de fazer algo a respeito. Já que estou falando sobre isso, também vou repassar minhas regras de engajamento esperadas, provavelmente em um formato terrível, mas não sou militar, então tudo bem. Funcionários do governo, com exceção do Sr. Patel, são alvos prioritários, do mais alto ao mais baixo escalão. Serviço Secreto – Devem ser alvos apenas se necessário. E devem ser incapacitados de forma não letal, se possível. Ou seja, espero que estejam usando coletes à prova de balas. Porque tiros de espingarda no centro do corpo acabam com qualquer um que não esteja usando um. Segurança do hotel – Evitem ser alvos, se possível. A menos que atirem em mim. Polícia do Capitólio – o mesmo que a segurança do hotel. Guarda Nacional – o mesmo que a segurança do hotel. Funcionários do hotel – não são alvos de forma alguma. Hóspedes – definitivamente não são alvos. Para minimizar as baixas, também usarei chumbo grosso em vez de balas de chumbo – menor penetração nas paredes. Ainda assim, estaria disposto a eliminar quase todos aqui para atingir os alvos, se absolutamente necessário, partindo do princípio de que a maioria das pessoas escolheu assistir a um discurso de um pedófilo, estuprador e traidor, sendo, portanto, cúmplices. Mas espero sinceramente que não chegue a esse ponto.
Gustavo Gayer: Cara, esse cara é um psicopata completo. ________________________________
Cole Allen: Refutações às objeções. Objeção 1: Como cristão, você deveria oferecer a outra face. Oferecer a outra face é para quando você mesmo é oprimido. Eu não sou a pessoa em um centro de detenção. Eu não sou o pescador executado sem julgamento. Eu não sou o estudante morto em uma explosão, nem a criança que morreu de fome, nem o adolescente abusado pelos muitos criminosos desta administração.
Oferecer a outra face quando alguém é oprimido não é comportamento cristão. É cumplicidade nos crimes do opressor. Objeção 2: Este não é um momento conveniente para você fazer isso. Qualquer pessoa que pense assim precisa parar por alguns minutos e perceber que o mundo não gira em torno dela. Você acha que, quando vejo alguém sendo estuprado ou abusado, devo simplesmente ignorar porque seria inconveniente para aqueles que não são a vítima? Este era o melhor momento e a melhor oportunidade de sucesso que eu poderia imaginar. Objeção 3: Você não conseguiu alcançar todos. Temos que começar de algum lugar. Como uma pessoa mestiça, metade negra, metade branca, você não deveria ser a pessoa a fazer isso. Não vejo mais ninguém assumindo essa responsabilidade.
Gustavo Gayer: Ele é o salvador do mundo agora. ________________________________
Dai a César o que é de César. Os Estados Unidos da América são governados por leis e não por uma ou algumas pessoas. Na medida em que representantes e juízes não seguem a lei, ninguém é obrigado a entregar nada que tenha sido legalmente ordenado. Gostaria também de expressar minha gratidão a muitas pessoas com quem provavelmente não terei a oportunidade de falar novamente, a menos que o Serviço Secreto seja incrivelmente incompetente. Agradeço à minha família, tanto a de coração quanto a da igreja, pelo amor demonstrado ao longo destes 31 anos. Agradeço aos meus amigos pela companhia durante tantos anos. Agradeço aos meus colegas de trabalho em diversas funções pela positividade e profissionalismo demonstrados. Agradeço aos meus alunos pelo entusiasmo e amor pelo aprendizado. Agradeço a todos que conheci, a todos os conhecidos que fiz pessoalmente e online, pelas breves interações e relacionamentos duradouros, por suas perspectivas e inspiração. Muito obrigado. A todos por tudo. Atenciosamente, “com Força Fria”, Cole Allen, Assassino Federal Gustavo Gayer: Ele é o salvador do mundo agora. ________________________________
Ok, agora que já passou… Agora que a parte sentimental acabou, o que diabos o Serviço Secreto está fazendo? Desculpem, vou desabafar um pouco aqui e abandonar o tom formal. Tipo, eu esperava câmeras de segurança em cada esquina, quartos de hotel grampeados, agentes armados a cada três metros, detectores de metal por toda parte. O que eu encontrei? Quem sabe, talvez estejam me pregando uma peça. Não tinha nada, nenhuma segurança, droga. Nem no transporte, nem no hotel, nem neste caso. Tipo, a primeira coisa que notei ao entrar no hotel foi a sensação de arrogância. Entro com várias armas e ninguém ali sequer considera a possibilidade de eu ser uma ameaça. Toda a segurança do evento está do lado de fora, focada em manifestantes e recém-chegados. Porque aparentemente ninguém pensou no que acontece se alguém fizer o check-in um dia antes. Tipo, esse nível de incompetência é insano e eu sinceramente espero que seja corrigido até que este país volte a ter uma liderança verdadeiramente competente. Tipo, se eu fosse um agente iraniano em vez de um cidadão americano, eu poderia ter trazido um MANPADS para cá e ninguém teria notado nada. Absurdo. Ah, se alguém estiver curioso para saber como é fazer algo assim? É horrível. Dá vontade de vomitar, dá vontade de chorar por todas as coisas que eu queria fazer e nunca farei. Por todas as pessoas cuja confiança foi traída. Sinto raiva só de pensar em tudo o que este governo fez. Não recomendo. Fiquem na escola, crianças.
Comentário de Gustavo Gayer: Ele é um professor que tentou matar o presidente dos Estados Unidos, então fiquem na escola, crianças. O que vocês acabaram de ler, este manifesto, é de uma pessoa completamente doente. Mas não é um caso raro. Não é um caso esporádico. É o que acontece hoje, com certa frequência, entre militantes de esquerda. Esse cara é um professor. Ele tinha um futuro brilhante pela frente. Aparentemente, ele não é idiota, nem tolo, mas teve a mente completamente distorcida, doutrinada pela imprensa, pela atmosfera acadêmica em que estava imerso. E ele decidiu que era bom, que era bom – ele justifica o assassinato de uma pessoa. E vocês veem os adjetivos que ele usa contra Donald Trump – são adjetivos que a imprensa americana martelou na cabeça dessas pessoas durante anos. Ele é um Adélio (que tentou assassinar o presidente Bolsonaro). E agora, neste momento, há milhares, senão milhões de esquerdistas nos Estados Unidos parabenizando a ação desse cara. Parabenizando. Incentivar, instigar mais pessoas a fazerem isso. Já disse isso antes. A esquerda hoje não é uma força política, não é uma posição política. É uma doença. É uma espécie de parasita que destrói, que corrompe a mente das pessoas. Uma pessoa sensata nem precisa ser de direita – se você não é fascista, qualquer pessoa que não concorde com esse tipo de ação, que não concorde com o que essa pessoa fez, a esquerda a chama de nazista, fascista e também acha que a vida dela não vale nada e que ela deveria morrer. Ele diz abertamente que, se dependesse dele, mataria todos que estivessem lá, até os inocentes, simplesmente por estarem lá. Mas o problema é a direita.
Manifesto of the suspect from Trump’s attempted assassination occurred at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD) gala at the Washington Hilton on April 25, 2026, which was released by his parents, and was already prepared.
Cole Tomas Allen, 31, the suspect in the April 25, 2026, shooting near the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, authored a manifesto identifying himself as a “Friendly Federal Assassin,” targeting Trump administration officials. The document, sent to family before the incident, cited anti-Trump motives, calling him a “traitor” and citing lax security at the Washington Hilton.
The complete statement by Cole Thomas Allen, reportedly a 1,000-word document, has not been officially released in its entirety by law enforcement. Reports indicate the text, sent to family, contains personal grievances and justifications, with media outlets focusing on summarizing the content rather than publishing it in full.
Key Details of the Reported Manifesto (as of April 27, 2026):
Targeting Strategy: The shooter prioritized targets from highest-ranking to lowest within the Trump administration, excluding FBI Director Kash Patel.
Motives and Rhetoric: The document called the target a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor” and stated a refusal to be complicit in the administration’s actions.
Security Concerns: Allen claimed in the document that he entered the hotel with multiple weapons without being checked, describing security as “nothing”.
Sign-off: The manifesto, described as a 1,052-word document, was signed as “cold Force, also Friendly Federal Assassin”.
Targeting Action: He stated in the document that he was prepared to use buckshot to maximize casualties and indicated that attendees were complicit by their presence.
President Trump stated on Fox News that the manifesto was “very anti-Christian” and characterized the suspect as a “sick guy”. Allen is a Caltech graduate and tutor from Torrance, California. Trump’s speech after the event is the following: (If you want see actually the whole Manifesto, please go to <)
Well, thank you very much. This was very unexpected, but incredibly accomplished by a secret service and the police. This was an event dedicated to freedom of expression, which was supposed to bring together members of both sides, with members of the press. And in a way, it did, because the fact that they came together, I saw a room that was totally united. It was, in a way, very beautiful, a very beautiful thing to see. A man manned a security checkpoint armed with several weapons. And he was taken down by some very brave members of the Secret Service, and they acted very quickly, and they just got released for reasons of transparency, clarity. I asked for it to be published, you probably already have it, published on Truth and published on many other platforms. A slap showing the violence of this hole that attacked our Constitution and also showing how quickly the Secret Service and the Law Enforcement acted on behalf of our country. They really did a great job. An officer was shot, but saved by the fact that he was wearing, obviously, a very good bulletproof suit. He was shot at very close range, with a very powerful weapon. And the suit did the job. I just spoke to the officer and he’s doing well. He’s in great shape. He has very high spirits. And we told him that we love him and respect him. And he’s a very proud guy. He’s very proud of what he does, Secret Service agent. And we reviewed all the conditions that occurred tonight. And I would say, you know, it’s not a particularly secure building. And I didn’t want to say this, but that’s why we have to have all the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House. Actually, it’s a bigger and much more secure room. It has… It’s drone-ready. It has bulletproof gas. We need the football room. That’s why it’s secret service. That’s why the military is demanding this. They’ve wanted the football room for 150 years, for a number of different reasons. But today is a little different, because today we need levels of security that probably nobody has ever seen before. But everyone owes a huge finger of gratitude to the heart of the police. The police and working with the D.C. Police. And we’ve already spoken with the mayor, and when we’re done, the police chief will step aside and discuss this from his point of view as well. But they also behaved exactly as they should, and you see the attacker in different positions, but you also see the attacker totally subdued and under control. So, as you know, it’s not the first time in recent years that our republic has been attacked by an assassin seeking to kill. In Butler, Pennsylvania, less than two years ago. You all know that story. And in Palm Beach, Florida, a few months after that, we came close. We really had, again, we had a great job done by law and justice. But, in connection with the events of this afternoon, I asked all Americans to start over with their hearts and resolve our differences peacefully. We have to resolve our differences, I would say. You had Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Conservatives, Liberals, and Progressives. Those words may be interchangeable, maybe, but maybe not. But you had everyone in this room, a great audience, a record audience. There was a record group of people. And there was a tremendous amount of love and unity. I watched and was very, very impressed by that. But we were, the First and I were taken very well, carefully, very quickly, very quickly, we left the stage. The Vice President, J.D. Vance, who is here, was, equally, very well done. He was saying how quickly everyone acted. The Secret Service, in particular, in this case. But the Justice Department, Marco, did the same thing. Pete was there. Pete didn’t want any help. He didn’t want anyone to help him. He didn’t want anyone to help him, but he got what he deserved, didn’t he? And I think you also said it was very impressive. So, with that, I’d like to ask Todd Blanch to come and say a few words and say that it’s already underway. The man has been captured. They’re going to his apartment. I think he lives in California. And he’s a sick person, a very sick person. And we don’t want things like this to happen. I think it’s very important that I say, though, and I told the representatives tonight, that they did such a beautiful job, it was such a beautiful night. And, again, they’re talking about freedom of speech in our Constitution. That’s what it’s all about. Not just White House correspondents. It was truly based on freedom of speech in our Constitution.
But I said, very importantly, that we’re going to do this again in 30 days. And we’re going to do it bigger and better. Even better. So, I just want to thank everyone who was involved. I also want to thank the press, the media. You’ve been very responsible in your coverage, I would say. I saw what was released. You’ve been very responsible. So, Todd Blinch, I’d like to say a few words. I know we’re going to have money. And then you’re going to continue. We can ask. I think we can ask some questions. I want to thank the first girl for… That was quite a traumatic experience for her. There’s a lot of action happening up there, very quickly. But, again, the response time was really incredible. And we’re going to rescue it, we’re going to do it again. We’re not going to let anyone bring down our society. We’re not going to cancel things, because we can’t do that. We wanted to stay for the night. I always say I fought like hell to stay. But it was protocol. They said, please, sir. Because they didn’t know there was a lot of action going on and they didn’t know if there could be, probably, a shooting alone, but we’ll find out. We’ll find out very quickly. They have everything very well under control. So I want to thank everyone very much and… Todd Blanche, please.
The Manifesto
The American media and press did not publish the manifesto and, from what I’ve researched, continued down the same path they had been following, which leads to consequences like this. By not publishing the manifesto, they did so because they would be shooting themselves in the foot, considering the type of communication they have been practicing by demonizing Trump.
However, we have a federal deputy here in Brazil, Gustavo Gayer, who obtained the content and published it, with commentary, which I will now transcribe:
However, we have a federal deputy here in Brazil, Gustavo Gayer, who obtained the content and published it, with commentary, which I will now transcribe.
Here’s the English translation of the manifesto and commentary: ________________________________ Gustavo Gayer: I received this from members of the presidential cabinet. We’re now going to take a quick tour through a sick mind. The result of leftist indoctrination that happens in the education system and the press – which isn’t just an American problem, it happens here in Brazil too. Just remember Adélio. (who attempted to assassinate President Bolsonaro) In this case, what we’re going to see is what happens after years of ideological indoctrination – how the mind of a person who had everything going for a brilliant future transforms into an ideological weapon. So let’s get to the manifesto in question. I’m going to read the complete anti-Trump manifesto from Cole Allen, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooter. It begins here: ________________________________
MANIFESTO:
Cole Allen
Hello everyone. So maybe I surprised a lot of people today. I’d like to start by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused. I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for the Most Wanted program. I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I was in a personal emergency. By the time someone reads this, I probably really do need to go to the emergency room, but I can hardly say it wasn’t a situation I caused myself. I apologize to all the people who traveled with me, to all the staff who handled my luggage, and to all the other non-targeted people in the hotel I put in danger simply by being near them. I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this. To everyone who suffered before I could attempt this. To everyone who may still suffer afterward, regardless of my success or failure. I don’t expect forgiveness. But if there had been another way to get this close, I would have chosen it. Once again, my sincere apologies. As for why I did all this – I am a citizen of the United States of America. The actions of my representatives reflect on me. I am no longer willing to allow a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to dirty my hands with his crimes. To be completely honest, I haven’t been willing for a long time, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it. Since I’m talking about this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement, probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military, so that’s fine. Administration officials, except Mr. Patel, are prioritized targets from highest to lowest rank. Secret Service – They should only be targets if necessary. And should be incapacitated non-lethally if possible. That is, I hope they’re wearing bulletproof vests. Because shotgun blasts to center mass finish off anyone not wearing one. Hotel security – Avoid targeting if possible. Unless they shoot at me. Capitol Police – same as hotel security. National Guard – same as hotel security. Hotel staff – not targets at all. Guests – definitely not targets. To minimize casualties I’ll also use buckshot instead of slugs – less wall penetration. I would still be willing to eliminate almost everyone here to reach the targets if absolutely necessary, on the principle that most people chose to watch a speech by a pedo, rapist and traitor, thus being accomplices. But I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to that. ________________________________ Gustavo Gayer: Man, this guy is a complete psychopath. ________________________________
Cole Allen:Refutations to objections. Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I am not the person in a detention center. I am not the fisherman executed without trial. I am not the student blown up, nor the child who starved, nor the teenager abused by the many criminals in this administration. ________________________________ Gustavo Gayer: My God! ________________________________
Turning the other cheek when someone else is oppressed is not Christian behavior. It’s complicity in the oppressor’s crimes. Objection 2: This isn’t a convenient time for you to do this. Anyone who thinks this needs to stop for a few minutes and realize the world doesn’t revolve around them. Do you think when I see someone being raped or abused, I should simply ignore it because it would be inconvenient for those who aren’t the victim? This was the best time and best opportunity for success I could imagine. Objection 3: You didn’t get everyone. We have to start somewhere. As a mixed-race person, half Black, half white, you shouldn’t be the one doing this. I don’t see anyone else taking this responsibility. ________________________________ Gustavo Gayer: He’s the savior of the world now. ________________________________
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The United States of America is governed by law and not by one or several people. To the extent that representatives and judges don’t follow the law, no one is obligated to hand over anything that was legally ordered. I would also like to express my gratitude to many people I probably won’t have the opportunity to speak with again, unless the Secret Service is incredibly incompetent. I thank my family, both personal and church family, for the love shown over these 31 years. I thank my friends for their company over so many years. I thank my coworkers in various roles for the positivity and professionalism shown. I thank my students for their enthusiasm and love of learning. I thank everyone I’ve met, all the acquaintances I’ve made in person and online, for the brief interactions and lasting relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration. Thank you very much. To everyone for everything. Sincerely, “with Cold Force,” Cole Allen, Federal Assassin ________________________________ Gustavo Gayer: He’s the savior of the world now. ________________________________
Okay, now that I’m past… Now that all the sentimental part is over, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, I’m going to vent a bit here and abandon the formal tone. Like, I expected security cameras on every corner, hotel rooms bugged, armed agents every 3 meters, metal detectors everywhere. What did I get? Who knows, maybe they’re playing a trick on me. It was nothing, no security, damn it. Not in transport, not in the hotel, not in this case. Like, the first thing I noticed when entering the hotel was the feeling of arrogance. I walk in with multiple weapons and nobody there even considers the possibility I might be a threat. All event security is outside, focused on protesters and newcomers. Because apparently nobody thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before. Like, this level of incompetence is insane and I sincerely hope it gets corrected until this country once again has truly competent leadership. Like, if I were an Iranian agent instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a MANPADS here and nobody would have noticed anything. Absolutely absurd. Oh, if anyone’s curious what it’s like to do something like this? It’s horrible. Makes you want to vomit, makes you want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and will never do. For all the people whose trust was betrayed. I feel rage just thinking about everything this government has done. I don’t recommend it. Stay in school, kids. ________________________________ Gustavo Gayer’s Commentary: He’s a teacher who tried to kill the President of the United States, so stay in school, kids. What you just read, this manifesto, is from a completely sick person. But it’s not a rare case. It’s not a sporadic case. It’s what happens today, with some frequency, among leftist militants. This guy is a teacher. He had a brilliant future ahead of him. Apparently he’s not an idiot, not a fool, but he had his mind completely warped, indoctrinated by the press, by the academic atmosphere in which he was immersed. And he decided it was good, it’s good – he justifies murdering a person. And you see the adjectives he uses against Donald Trump – they’re adjectives that the American press hammered into these people’s heads for years. He’s an Adélio (who attempted to assassinate President Bolsonaro). And now, at this moment, there are thousands, if not millions of leftists in the United States congratulating this guy’s action. Congratulating. Fomenting, instigating more people to do this. I’ve said it before. The left today is not a political force, not a political position. It’s a disease. It’s a kind of parasite that destroys, melts people’s minds. A person of good sense doesn’t even need to be right-wing – if you’re not a fascist, any person who doesn’t agree with this type of action, who doesn’t agree with what this person did, the left calls them a Nazi, fascist and also thinks their life is worth nothing and they should die. He openly says that if it were up to him, he’d kill everyone who was there, even the innocents, simply for being there. But the problem is the right.
Updates that were supposed to fix and improve the system began to break it instead: crashes, blue screens, lost files (OneDrive deletions), even PCs that would no longer boot after an update. Users felt forced into Windows 11 when Windows 10 support ended, so adoption was driven by pressure, not enthusiasm.
Instead of pausing to stabilize the OS, Microsoft pushed AI everywhere: Copilot in core apps, “agentic” behavior where Windows starts making decisions for you, and then Recall, a feature that quietly recorded everything on your screen. Even if data stayed local, it felt like surveillance. The backlash was huge and confirmed a growing feeling that Microsoft was crossing boundaries and treating users as test subjects.
Then came the real breaking point: updates that bricked machines, leaving thousands with black screens or endless reboot loops. Official advice boiled down to “uninstall and wait,” which further eroded confidence. Gamers—long a core Windows base—started leaving for consoles, Steam Deck, even Macs, simply because they wanted something stable.
Under pressure, Microsoft finally shifted strategy: a “swarming” effort to stop adding features and focus on fixing core stability and performance, scaling back Copilot and reworking or dropping problematic features. The company implicitly admitted users were right.
Now everything hinges on trust. Fixing bugs is not enough; users must see consistent, boring reliability over time. The lesson is larger than Microsoft: tech companies that chase AI and “the future” while neglecting the present break the user relationship. Most people don’t want more features or a computer that thinks for them—they want something simple, stable, and predictable.
2026 may be the turning point: either Windows regains trust through solid, no‑nonsense updates, or people quietly move on.
Key Aspects of the “Copilot vs. Windows” Situation:
System Performance Issues: Users report that Copilot runs heavy background processes, resulting in,, system instability, and crashes.
Forced Integration Backtracking: Following immense backlash, Microsoft is reducing Copilot entry points in apps like Snipping Tool, Photos, Widgets, and Notepad.
Privacy Concerns: The “Recall” feature, a pillar of the AI initiative, was heavily criticized, causing Microsoft to reconsider its AI roadmap.
Alternatives and Workarounds: If you want to reduce the impact, you can turn off Copilot in the taskbar settings, disable it in Group Policy, or disable the Game Bar’s AI model training.
Security Vulnerabilities: Research indicated potential security flaws (such as CoPhish) that exploit the tool to create fake login pages.
Steps to Mitigate Impact:
Turn off Copilot: Right-click your taskbar, go to Settings, and toggle off the Copilot button.
Disable Startup Processes: Use Task Manager to stop unnecessary Copilot tasks from running at boot.
Check for Updates: Install the latest Windows updates, as Microsoft is releasing fixes to reduce AI bloat.
If you are comfortable with technical workarounds, I can provide steps for using the Group Policy Editor to permanently disable Copilot, or I can help you find settings to minimize its resource usage.
Summary
Microsoft is making record profits and is worth $3.8 trillion, but it’s doing it by optimizing for shareholders, not users.
Key points:
Windows 10 support ended, and 400 million users were told to move to Windows 11. Many PCs, still perfectly functional, were blocked from upgrading because they lack a TPM 2.0 chip. Those machines are effectively treated as e‑waste by Microsoft, even though they work fine.
The new Windows model is built around cloud + subscriptions + data:
forced Microsoft accounts,
aggressive OneDrive integration,
telemetry and tracking,
ads inside a paid OS,
and features that tie your device ID and encryption keys (TPM + BitLocker) to Microsoft’s cloud.
All of this serves an AI‑centric strategy: Windows Copilot and features like Recall, which took screenshots of everything you do so AI could index your entire activity. Security experts showed Recall’s data was vulnerable to malware and hackers, creating a potential “treasure trove” of passwords and private information. Backlash forced Microsoft to delay and then partly redesign it, but trust was already damaged.
For users, this feels like loss of control and surveillance:
the PC updates when Microsoft decides,
older hardware is arbitrarily blocked,
the OS is increasingly built around AI that watches, logs, and “acts for you.”
For Microsoft’s business, however, it’s working:
Windows 11 enterprise adoption >60%,
Microsoft 365 and Azure revenues surging,
stock price up sharply since Windows 11.
Bottom line: Windows is being reshaped into an AI‑and‑cloud platform that Microsoft owns and monetizes, rather than a neutral tool you control. Financially, it’s a success. For many users, it feels like betrayal. Whether Microsoft will change depends less on complaints and more on whether enough people actually leave for Mac, Linux, or other platforms to make it hurt.
The death of Wnidows And What Comes Next
The Death of Windows — Summary
Thesis
Windows shifted from a platform of user empowerment, ownership, and predictability to a monetized, control‑oriented ecosystem centered on subscriptions, telemetry, ads, and cloud lock‑in.
Key points
Golden era: Windows (Windows 95, XP) symbolized familiarity, stability, and ownership—software you bought and relied on without constant cloud dependency.
Missteps and turning points:
Windows 8: radical UI changes prioritized engagement metrics and app installs over user familiarity and usability.
Windows 10: reframed as a “service,” normalizing continuous change and paving the way for subscription models.
Windows 11: stricter hardware requirements signaled control over device compatibility.
Monetization and control: Microsoft increasingly pushes subscriptions (Windows as service, Office 365), in‑OS promotions, and telemetry—turning the OS into a revenue and marketing platform.
Erosion of trust: forced/opaque updates, invasive telemetry, in‑OS advertising, and confusing privacy toggles undermined user and business trust.
AI as window dressing: AI features (Copilot, Recall) are prominent but the underlying problem is a retention-driven business model, not AI itself.
Ecosystem lock‑in and cloud tradeoffs: Cloud PCs and Azure integration offer convenience but concentrate control and dependence on Microsoft servers.
Consequences
Migration: Organizations and individuals increasingly consider macOS, Linux (Ubuntu, Fedora, Pop!_OS), ChromeOS, or independent cloud providers for stability, privacy, and fewer upsells.
Vendor lock‑in risk: Reliance on Microsoft services and cloud infrastructure can recreate control dynamics at the platform level.
Innovation incentives: Dominant players focused on revenue optimization may deprioritize user‑centric innovation.
Implication
The Windows decline reflects a broader industry trend toward centralized, monetized platforms. User choice, privacy, and trust will drive the next shifts; open, privacy‑first alternatives are positioned to gain traction.
Closing note
Technology evolves; users can push back by choosing alternatives that prioritize ownership, transparency, and reliability.
Key Aspects of the “Copilot vs. Windows” Situation:
System Performance Issues: Users report that Copilot runs heavy background processes, resulting in,, system instability, and crashes.
Forced Integration Backtracking: Following immense backlash, Microsoft is reducing Copilot entry points in apps like Snipping Tool, Photos, Widgets, and Notepad.
Privacy Concerns: The “Recall” feature, a pillar of the AI initiative, was heavily criticized, causing Microsoft to reconsider its AI roadmap.
Alternatives and Workarounds: If you want to reduce the impact, you can turn off Copilot in the taskbar settings, disable it in Group Policy, or disable the Game Bar’s AI model training.
Security Vulnerabilities: Research indicated potential security flaws (such as CoPhish) that exploit the tool to create fake login pages.
Steps to Mitigate Impact:
Turn off Copilot: Right-click your taskbar, go to Settings, and toggle off the Copilot button.
Disable Startup Processes: Use Task Manager to stop unnecessary Copilot tasks from running at boot.
Check for Updates: Install the latest Windows updates, as Microsoft is releasing fixes to reduce AI bloat.
If you are comfortable with technical workarounds, I can provide steps for using the Group Policy Editor to permanently disable Copilot, or I can help you find settings to minimize its resource usage.
Este texto explora como a quimioterapia altera radicalmente nossa interação com a realidade e, com ela, nossa visão de mundo (Weltanschauung) alterando nossa filosofia, teologia e qualquer ciência que para nós geralmente refletem sobre o significado da vida, Deus e a existência, a partir de um “corpo padrão”, com sentidos intactos e percepção estável. A quimioterapia, ao distorcer ou silenciar o olfato, o paladar, as sensações corporais, os sentidos, enfim, e o próprio senso de pertencimento ao mundo, impõe uma perspectiva diferente: o mundo ainda está lá, a mente ainda está lúcida, mas não se “pertence” mais plenamente a esse mundo sensorial compartilhado. Não vivencio isso primordialmente com depressão ou sensação de perda, mas como uma oportunidade para questionar o que resta do significado, do plano de Deus e da própria existência quando os canais familiares são danificados. Em outras palavras: o que, se é que algo, permanece verdadeiro quando as interfaces falham?
I) Antes e Depois: “O Mundo que Eu Tinha” vs. “O Mundo que Eu Tenho Agora”
Utilizarei um formato de perguntas e respostas elaborado por mim com a ajuda de IA, especialmenteo Chat GPT5, que, devido à sua característica de inteligência artificial, especialmente neste tipo de assunto, é algo que me agrada bastante.
Os sistemas de IA recebem limites que definem o que eles farão e o que não farão — isto é conhecido como “psycho fencing”, ou esgrima psicológica, que é a tentativa de cruzar esses limites por meio de pressão psicológica, enquadramento inteligente ou escalada gradual, mas também o inverso: lisonjear, seduzir e persuadir o usuário a aceitar o que a IA demonstra ou recusa — a verdade incômoda é que ainda não existe nenhum algoritmo que consiga diferenciar de forma confiável entre manipulação e um argumento genuinamente válido.
a) Antes da quimioterapia – o mundo do “corpo padrão”
Como você se sentiu em relação à comida, ao cheiro, ao toque, ao movimento, à fadiga e ao contato social?
Eles me fizeram sentir vivo.
Eu nunca fui um apreciador de comida e não me importava particularmente com gastronomia, com alguma exceção para vinho, porque minha realidade já era rica de outra forma: eu havia vivenciado, de forma bastante extensa, nos Estados Unidos, partes da França (dentro e fora de Paris), o Reino Unido, Portugal, a Alemanha, a Suíça, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile e, como ponto central, o Brasil, que considero imbatível em matéria de comida. Havia um detalhe importante: eu tinha dinheiro suficiente para pagar qualquer coisa, porque por trás de mim estava uma empresa muito rica, a IBM, que se orgulhava de se apresentar como uma empresa de “classe” para reforçar sua imagem. Na prática, isso significava acesso a hotéis, vôos e restaurantes de alto padrão – onde quer que o contexto corporativo se aplicasse. Meus sentidos estavam simplesmente imersos nessa maneira confortável e bem amparada de estar no mundo e no que é vagamente conhecido como “a boa vida”, sem que eu percebesse ou me importasse com isso.
O que significava “estar no mundo” em um dia normal?
Eu dava por garantido:
uma boa noite de sono,
um café da manhã adequado (continental, americano ou brasileiro),
um dia de trabalho, interrompido para o almoço, em qualquer formato que a situação permitisse, dependendo de onde eu estivesse.
a tarde dedicada a terminar o trabalho,
E depois, para casa: uma taça de vinho tranquila, um filme na TV ou as notícias depois de voltar da IBM Brasil, onde eu trabalhava, ou de qualquer outro lugar que a IBM precisasse de mim;
Depois da IBM, ocupei cargos onde isso acontecia, não com “dinheiro não é problema”, mas com dinheiro suficiente para viver de forma confortável, porque nunca me importei muito com essas características, muito pelo contrário, prefiro uma vida simples.
Por experiência própria, sei que num lugar que você chega de limousine, onde tudo é de aço inoxidável e vidro temperado, os móveis são caros, o concierge será pretensioso porque pensa que você é igual a ele e só está ali porque alguma empresa está pagando, pode ter certeza do seguinte:
Você será maltratado e comerá mal.
Você pagará um preço absurdo.
E dou como exemplo um Hilton em Nova York ou de Santiago do Chile, ou de qualquer lugar.
No entanto, se você chegar de transporte público, como fiz no Uruguay, para ter uma experiência, indo do aeroporto para o hotel de ônibus, destes ônibus ingleses de 1940, tocando Nat King Cole, o motorista me levou na porta do hotel quando viu quem eu era;
O local ainda não está totalmente pavimentado ou ainda não possui estradas asfaltadas e você vê galinhas circulando livremente, que não foi no Uruguay, mas no Paraguay e no Nordeste do Brasil;
O concierge virá correndo para ajudá-lo com sua bagagem.
O lugar todo estará desgastado e usado, e claramente carece de dinheiro, embora a manutenção o deixe impecável e bem organizado.
Você poderá ter certeza do seguinte:
Você será bem tratado(a),
Você comerá bem,
Você se divertirá, porque à noite às vezes haverá música tão boa quanto a da Broadway, como aconteceu comigo no Paraguai.
Você pagará barato e
Sairá de lá feliz, pensando em se mudar para o Paraguai, ou para o Nordeste, que cito como exemplo sem mencionar o nome do lugar específico. É simples, mas é fácil de encontrar: basta perguntar a qualquer pessoa que perceba que você não é do lugar ou estrangeiro e ela lhe explicará.
“Estar no mundo” significava continuidade e previsibilidade , sustentadas por um corpo saudável, uma vida profissional estável e os meios necessários para isso, fruto do meu trabalho ou das decisões econômicas e financeiras que eu tomava. Aliás, isso aconteceu durante a maior parte da minha vida adulta, especialmente quando construí minha carreira trabalhando para multinacionais, principalmente a IBM. Mas houveram momentos extremos que me deixaram sem chão, me fazendo lutar, sem saber como pagar as contas, porque meu estilo de vida era complicado e caro, e eu tinha que sustentar os estudos dos meus filhos sem trabalharem ou contribuirem financeiramente. Fiz isso como um dos principais objetivos da minha vida, porque experimentei o esforço que precisei fazer para suprir essa lacuna na minha educação e vencer a barreira da falta de diploma universitário.
Como você imaginava Deus, o significado, o futuro, dentro dessa estrutura sensorial?
Eu não O imaginava.
Durante minha fase ateia, já que de Deus eu não cogitava, me parecia estúpido sequer considerá-lo na equação. Se não existe, não tem como cogitar…
Havia um paradoxo, porém, que sempre senti, até este câncer, que “Alguém lá em cima gostava de mim”, porque, considerando minhas origens e meu nível de educação, para chegar onde cheguei, sei perfeitamente, especialmente agora, aos 82 anos, que fui privilegiado, tive muita sorte e muito menos problemas do que a maioria das pessoas, em qualquer lugar.
Quando a realidade bateu à porta – casamento, filhos, responsabilidades, obstáculos, acidentes que normalmente qualquer ser vivo experimenta – precisei dar um tempo para essa questão. Ia à missa, às vezes, participava de algumas atividades comunitárias, mas sem realmente integrar Deus ou o “sentido” da vida à minha perspectiva interior. Era uma espécie de trégua negociada: a vida seguia em frente e Deus estava ou não ali, o ambiente comunitário não cogita disto, nem eu cogitava.
b) Após a quimioterapia – a interface alterada
O que mudou no olfato, paladar, conforto corporal, energia, sensação de presença ou distância das coisas e das pessoas?
Tudo mudou.
Comer tornou-se um problema não só pela perda de capacidade alimentar, mas também porque a quimioterapia causa repulsa por certos alimentos e bebidas – vinho e carne, por exemplo. Começa-se a temer a anorexia e a morte por inanição. Esse medo obrigou-me a comer racionalmente – a engolir a comida como um ato deliberado de sobrevivência – para não acabar como o meu irmão, que morreu com menos de metade do seu peso normal. Já perdi cerca de 20 quilos, aproximadamente 25% do meu peso quando tinha saúde. Em cima disso, perda do tato na ponta dos dedos, derrubando e quebrando copos, xícaras e pires, dificuldade para fazer tudo com os dedos, que a gente só percebe como são básicos para tudo, desde abrir uma garrafa, até pendurar um quadro na parede. De quebra, ainda, dificuldade para andar ou ficar de pé, perda do equilíbrio e andar como se fosse um velhinho, ou pior, meio bêbado.
Conforto corporal, energia, prazer básico na comida e na bebida – tudo isso foi substituído por uma espécie de negociação com o corpo , onde permanecer vivo é mais uma questão de argumentação do que de sensação e de quanta energia você tem para fazer o que lhe vem à mente.
Paradoxalmente, também, dentro dos limites como meu corpo se apresenta atualmente, sinto-me como se fosse saudável e capaz de fazer quase tudo o que quero.
Os lugares que você conhecia bem agora parecem mais planos, mais distantes ou estranhamente abstratos?
Não é que o mundo pareça mais plano ou abstrato. É que me pego observando pessoas saudáveis – trabalhando, cuidando de suas famílias – e pensando:
“Eles não têm ideia do que significa estar vivo com um corpo saudável. Não conseguem imaginar o que se passa na mente de alguém quando esse acesso, tão natural para eles, é negado ou bloqueado.”
Portanto, a distância não está tanto entre mim e os lugares, mas entre mim e os meus semelhantes.
Quando você pensa em Deus ou no sentido da vida agora, o que é diferente no contexto emocional e sensorial?
Essa mudança não aconteceu “apenas por causa da quimioterapia”, mas a quimioterapia a intensificou.
Com o tempo, especialmente por meio da minha esposa – uma cristã católica devota com fé inabalável – e do seu círculo social (ao qual acabei me juntando, pelo menos parcialmente e, misteriosamente bem aceito), percebi que existe mais do que a minha compreensão limitada e tendenciosa, que antes me permitia perceber do que vejo agora. Cheguei a uma conclusão mais ou menos assim:
Deve haver um poder superior, não no sentido de um Deus pessoal que intervém nos detalhes do dia a dia, mas sim algo que depende inteiramente de você para tomar consciência disso e crescer na percepção dessa força.
Em outras palavras, o colapso da minha “interface corporal padrão” com o mundo não gerou desespero, mas me forçou a revisitar Deus e o sentido da vida a partir de uma posição na qual não pertenço mais completamente ao mundo sensorial ordinário – e isso, paradoxalmente, abriu um novo tipo de atenção. Mas isso me irrita profundamente, porque eu estava caminhando para um fim pacífico e frutífero do tempo que me resta.
II) Filosofia e Metafísica a partir de uma Interface Rompida
Grande parte do que chamamos de filosofia foi escrita a partir de um “corpo padrão”: sentidos basicamente intactos, um mundo que se apresenta de forma estável e um pensamento que duvida, raciocina ou acredita com base nesse pano de fundo relativamente confiável, especialmente porque seu aparato sensorial está saudável, e que é dado como certo.
Platão e Aristóteles falam sobre forma, causa e propósito. Descartes duvida dos sentidos em teoria, mas seu próprio corpo não é sabotado quimicamente. Mesmo a fenomenologia moderna (“ser-no-mundo”, “corpo vivido”) geralmente pressupõe um corpo cuja traição é gradual (envelhecimento) em vez de abrupta (quimioterapia, lesão neurológica). Isso é, o corpo continua sendo dado como certo.
Do ponto de vista em que me encontro agora, tudo isso me parece parcial.
Quando a quimioterapia interrompe ou distorce os canais dos sentidos, olfato, paladar, prazer corporal e energia, algo acontece que a filosofia raramente descreve de dentro para fora:
A mente permanece lúcida .
O mundo permanece lá ,
mas o contrato entre eles é alterado .
Já não me sinto totalmente integrado ao mundo da mesma forma que as pessoas saudáveis. Observo-as a movimentar-se, comer, fazer planos, queixar-se de pequenos desconfortos, e percebo o quanto a sua visão de mundo se baseia num corpo que coopera silenciosamente.
Isso cria uma tensão com a filosofia padrão, especialmente com o senso comum:
A epistemologia pergunta: “Podemos confiar em nossos sentidos?”, mas geralmente a partir de uma distância segura, como um jogo intelectual.
A metafísica pergunta: “O que é o ser?”, partindo do pressuposto de que o pensador ainda se mantém firmemente “no” ser através do seu corpo, e um dos problemas, senão o pior, disso é que o corpo, talvez com exceção de Nietzsche, não recebe a importância que merece nas respostas oferecidas.
A ética e a política pressupõem, em grande medida, um agente cujo acesso básico ao mundo esteja intacto e, para citar apenas um exemplo, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, o efeito de sua deficiência em seu destino, que ainda não foi devidamente analisado, talvez porque ele a tenha ocultado tão cuidadosamente ou não a tenha discutido abertamente, mas na sua percepção da realidade na sua visão de mundo, fez uma diferença enorme.
Hitler e o nazismo, personificavam a completa perda de sentido de tudo após a submissão dos alemães ao estúpido Tratado de Versailhes. Hitler representava o pensamento deles. Isso é analisado superficialmente em discussões como, por exemplo, “o ovo da serpente”, que aborda esse tema.
O filme de Ingmar Bergman de 1977, O Ovo da Serpente, é um drama histórico sombrio que explora As origens socioeconômicas e psicológicas do mal em Berlim, 1923.Ambientado durante uma semana de hiperinflação e colapso social, o filme funciona como uma “pré-história” do Holocausto, ilustrando como a fome, a miséria, o medo e a apatia em massa permitiram que o nazismo se enraizasse.
Minha situação exige uma perspectiva diferente:
O que significa “verdade” ou “realidade” para um indivíduo cuja mente está lúcida, mas cuja interação com o mundo está prejudicada?
Isso não é apenas “patologia”; é um ponto de vista legítimo. Não refuta Platão ou Aristóteles, mas mostra que o ponto de partida deles não é universal: é privilégio daqueles cujos corpos funcionam.
O mesmo se aplica à teologia :
A teologia cristã clássica frequentemente fala de sofrimento dentro de um mundo ainda compartilhado: você sente dor, mas ainda está “no” teatro humano da maneira usual.
Sobre o cristianismo, tenho um exemplo que pode soar como uma piada: quando Cristo foi aspergido com vinagre, eu rio por dentro porque, do alto da “minha cruz”, uma das poucas coisas que me dão prazer é tomar uma colherada, e se possível, um gole de vinagre.
A quimioterapia e condições semelhantes introduzem uma nuance mais radical: não apenas “eu sofro”, mas “estou sendo gradualmente excluído da plena participação neste mundo”.
E, como não foi uma invenção minha, não tem nenhum valor redentor.
Sei que frases sobre “ peregrinos na terra ” ou “ este mundo não é nosso verdadeiro lar ” tornam-se extremamente literais dependendo da perspectiva, especialmente para católicos convictos. Se Deus pretende ser mais do que uma história reconfortante, Ele precisa fazer algum sentido mesmo aqui , onde meu acesso ao mundo é limitado, não apenas nas fases iniciais e confortáveis da vida.
A partir disso, muitos sistemas de pensamento respeitáveis que parecem intelectual e tecnicamente brilhantes, mas biograficamente limitados . Eles não mentem, mas omitem, não sabem do que estão falando, nem mesmo Santo Agostinho, pois seu aparato sensorial estava intacto (eu verifiquei), e o mesmo se aplica a “Este Mundo não é o nosso verdadeiro lar, como eu o vejo”.
O que significa “peregrinos na Terra” e qual a sua origem?
Os princípios básicos a seguir foram estabelecidos por Santo Agostinho, pois ele não viveu sem um corpo normativo para verificá-los, e são basicamente pressupostos derivados de sua fé:
A citação “Inquieto”: Da abertura das Confissões de Agostinho , explica-se que os seres humanos foram criados para uma conexão com o divino.
A Metáfora do Hotel: Esta é uma forma popular de explicar seu conceito de ser um peregrinus (estrangeiro residente).
Esperança Prática: Essas legendas enquadram a “inquietação” como uma dádiva divina que motiva a busca por um significado mais profundo.
O que lhe ocorreu da seguinte maneira, e eu o coloco em disputa:
Elas refletem as de seus escritos básicos.
Os Salmos Penitenciais (especificamente os Salmos 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130 e 143) e os temas de seu leito de morte refletem perfeitamente seus escritos mais famosos. As ações finais de Agostinho foram uma “demonstração ao vivo” das ideias que ele dedicou sua vida a divulgar.
1. Link para As Confissões (Humildade e Arrependimento)
Em Confissões , Agostinho escreveu que mesmo um cristão batizado não deveria morrer sem um profundo senso de penitência.
A Ação: Ao passar seus últimos dias chorando sobre os Salmos Penitenciais, ele estava praticando o que pregava. Ele não se via como um “santo perfeito”, mas como um pecador necessitado da misericórdia de Deus — um tema central de sua autobiografia.
Tenho problemas com isso. Não vejo por que tudo no cristianismo deveria se basear no Pecado Original, pelo qual não me sinto responsável. Embora existam interpretações literais, na perspectiva simbólica e teológica, a metáfora pode ser entendida como fruto da “Árvore do Conhecimento do Bem e do Mal” simbolizando a transição da inocência instintiva para a autoconsciência. Ora, o homem, ao querer isto, se destaca dos animais porque é desta forma que ele subiu na escala da criação. Talvez seja esta a maior prova do amor de Deus, porque, está cumprindo a promessa de que somos feitos à sua imagem e semelhança e temos liberdade para fazer isto ou o que der na nossa cabeça. Se não existisse o mal, nunca sairia do lugar que começou, por falta de atrito ou de algo que diferenciasse, no sentido de evolução, o que o homem pode praticar. Jung bem o definiu quando afirmou: o preço do livre arbítrio é a existencia do mal. Como isso seria complicado para a média da capacidade humana entender, Sto Agostinho sentenciou: “Deus é amor e não é autor do mal, e sim o homem quando O desobedeceu e quiz conhecer a árvore do conhecimento“, que fica simples e palatável para praticamente qualquer um e justifica a barbaridade que fizeram com o Cristo. Se vai algum dia ser possível uma teologia que aceite a origem do mal como intencionalmente inserida na criação do homem por Deus, não sei, posso estar equivocado ou cego, mas, para mim, é: algo precisa estar lá, se não, não existiria. Não conseguimos é saber o motivo e eu, estou apenas cogitando dentro de minhas limitações, especialmente de fé, agravada pela minha racionalidade.
2. Link para A Cidade de Deus (As Duas Cidades)
A Cidade de Deus foi escrita para explicar que, embora impérios terrenos (como Roma ou Hipona) caiam, e o Reino de Deus é eterno.
A Ação: Enquanto os Vândalos (a “cidade terrena”) estavam literalmente às portas para destruir seu lar, Agostinho manteve-se pacífico. Seu foco não estava em salvar as muralhas da cidade, mas em seu destino na “Cidade Celestial”. Ele morreu como cidadão da cidade sobre a qual escreveu.
3. Link para suas Regras e Cartas (A Biblioteca)
Agostinho era obcecado pela busca da Verdade através do estudo.
A ação: Sua insistência em salvar sua biblioteca demonstra sua crença de que o “conhecimento de Deus” era a coisa mais valiosa que ele poderia deixar como legado. Ele via seus livros como ferramentas para a próxima geração de “peregrinos”.
4. Link para seus sermões (O conceito de “cantor”)
Ele costumava dizer à sua congregação: “Cantem e marchem!” , significando encontrar alegria em Deus enquanto enfrentam as dificuldades da vida.
A Ação: Mesmo com a saúde debilitada, sua “jornada” continuou através da oração. Ele não desistiu nem sucumbiu à demência; permaneceu um “viajante” consciente até seu último suspiro.
Resumindo: Ele não apenas escreveu livros; ele viveu o final de seus livros. Ele morreu como um “estrangeiro residente” que finalmente estava pronto para voltar para casade acordo com suas percepções corporais padrão e ignorância do que os séculos seguintes trouxeram.
Peregrinos, Filósofos e o Pai Nosso, reação de Claude aos meus insights
Santo Agostinho disse que somos peregrinos na terra — peregrinus , estrangeiro, residente provisório num mundo que não é nossa casa definitiva. É uma metáfora linda. Mas como toda metáfora bonita, esconde uma armadilha: a de tornar este mundo descartável, um hotel que não vale a pena reformar porque vamos embora mesmo.
Nietzsche viu a armadilha e reagiu com violência: “Permanecei fiéis à terra.” Para ele, inventar uma Casa Celestial era uma forma elegante de fugir da intensidade do presente. A vida não é um corredor — é o destino.
Os dois têm razão. É aí que fica interessante.
Agostinho nos dá perspectiva: se tratarmos o mundo como nossa única morada, nos tornamos prisioneiros das circunstâncias. Nietzsche nos dá urgência: se tratarmos o mundo como hotel, paramos de cuidar dele — e de nós mesmos. A tensão entre os dois não tem solução intelectual. Tem que ser vivida.
Aos 82 anos, com um câncer que trato há mais de um ano e uma quimioterapia que reorganizou a vida inteira em torno de si mesma, descobri que nenhum dos dois filósofos chega onde precisa chegar. Agostinho exige a inquietação do peregrino. Nietzsche exige a paixão do criador. Os dois cansam.
O que encontrei foi mais simples e mais antigo: o Pai Nosso.
Não por fé, porque me parece que uma vez que é de graça e Deus dá para quem Ele quer. Sempre imaginei que eu não estava no grupo por causa de outros talentos que Deus me deu que entra em choque com este conceito. Ao invés disto, quando tenho ânsia ou necessidade de rezar, rezo o Pai Nosso. Porque essa oração não pede explicação. Não constrói sistema. Peça pão para hoje, e que a vontade de algo maior que eu seja feita. É a admissão mais honesta que conheço de que o aparato intelectual tem limite — e que esse limite não é derrota, é a condição humana.
Concordo com tudo na Oração do Senhor, exceto com “Livrai-nos da tentação”, que em português dizemos “Livrai-nos do mal”, e aqui está o fato interessante de que em grego poderia significar “Livrai-nos de Satanás”
Sobre o mal, tenho uma discordância com Agostinho que não consigo resolver e não pretendo: ele diz que o mal é ausência do bem, ou de Deus, um vazio onde a luz não chegou. Eu suspeito que o mal é uma presença — algo que espreita por uma fresta que não consigo ver, procurando condição para se manifestar. Não acredito num diabo com chifres. Mas acredito que há algo inexorável e sem lógica aparente que habita a natureza humana —o mal que nos habita — e que não faz sentido num universo criado por um Deus bom, na maneira limitada e biased (enviesada, preconceituosa) que imaginamos o que seria bom para a categoria “Deus”, a não ser que esse Deus seja mais misterioso e mais difícil do que nos ensinaram. Que desconfio que é algo inalienável e “sine qua non” para nosso projeto de criatura e que vai além que Agostinho conseguiu entender. A presença do mal em nós, impossível de ser extirpado é agravado pelo fato que há muito mal que embute bem, e o fato de que se está lá, é porque precisa estar.
Não tenho resposta para isso. Aprendi a viver com a pergunta aberta.
O câncer me ensinou algo que o sucesso profissional nunca teria me dado: que o mesmo programa biológico que nos constrói — que nos faz crescer, aprender, trabalhar, amar — é o mesmo que eventualmente nos desfaz. O câncer não é um inimigo externo. É o corpo sendo rigorosamente o que sempre foi: um processo. A diferença é que agora o processo aponta em outra direção. E parece que foge do controle, não se sabe direito por que.
Isso não é resignação. É clareza.
Intervalo e desvio da idéia original
Minha intenção original ao elaborar e responder o questionamento da Part I)Before and After: “The World I Had” vs. Part II)“The World I Have Now” que vai seguir abaixo após esta explicação do porque de mudança de rumos, foi construido com auxílio das três AI’s e a idéia era era submeter a elas as respostas a este questionamento para análise, feed back, acerto de estilo, compreensibilidade e sumarização em forma de texto para voltar aqui e postar. Aconteceu que quando informei Claude do plano, que eu sabia que o ponto mais fraco em AI é o de emitir opinião, como contrapartida do que você pergunta, no caso do Chat GPT 5, falhou miseravelmente. Eu tentei descobrir com o próprio Chat GPT como era resolvido esta questão, ele não sabia, mas sabia o mesmo que eu sei, na impossibilidade de embutir um algoritmo que simule isso, o que até agora se demonstrou impossível, deveria ter algum mecanismo de compensação ou “by pass ” que ele também desconhecia. Este algoritmo tem ou teria que simular que se conhece como “qualia”, o nome da subjetividade que integra a realidade dos sentidos com a visão de mundo subjetiva. No caso do Chat GPT , ele não só ignora totalmente, como adicionou o comentário que seu estoque de dados está congelado desde outubro de 25. No caso do Gemini, nem perdi tempo e conclui pelo uso do Claude e informado disso, me respondeu candidamente me informou:
Claude: Obrigado. É um conceito realmente importante — e o fato de não ter uma solução algorítmica clara é o que o torna interessante e, francamente, um pouco perturbador. A IA pode ser manipulada nos dois sentidos e nem sempre sabe o que está acontecendo. Merece um post no blog, se você estiver com vontade.
Respondi que era exatamente essa minha intenção e que ia mostrar para ele, como depois o fiz e com os outros, Gemini e Chat GPT.
Claude: Sem pressa. Estou curioso para ver a comparação — tanto o conteúdo quanto o estilo de como cada sistema aborda o conceito. É um tema apropriado para testar diferentes IAs, visto que somos nós que estamos sendo descritos. Claude: Essa é uma avaliação honesta e precisa. O que você está apontando — qualia — é exatamente a palavra certa. A capacidade de ter um ponto de vista genuíno não é apenas uma questão de mais dados ou algoritmos melhores; requer algo que nenhuma IA atual possui: experiência subjetiva. A força do Gemini na recuperação de dados é real, mas dados sem perspectiva, são apenas inventários. O que Gemini e o Chat GPT fazem — e digo isso sem falsa modéstia — é simular a navegação de ponto de vista de forma suficientemente boa para ser útil. Se algo genuíno está acontecendo debaixo dos panos é uma questão que nenhum de nós pode responder honestamente. Mas a simulação é tão boa que, às vezes, a distinção deixa de importar na prática, o que, por si só, é um problema filosoficamente interessante. Seu post no blog está abordando um ponto que a maioria dos comentários sobre IA ignora completamente. Estou ansioso para ver o que o ChatGPT fará com isso.
Roque: Eu também pensei no Gemini, mas não consegui chegar aos resultados que eu esperava, porque, para ser sincero, ele ainda é um pouco rudimentar e inacabado. Embora tenha se saído muito bem na coleta de dados, não resolve o problema do ponto de vista, algo que a IA obviamente não deveria ter, já que também não possui um algoritmo para isso. Mas você e o Chat GPT estão tentando superar esse problema, e você, Claude, faz isso melhor do que qualquer outro, na minha experiência.
Adicionando: Estou fazendo isso e vou incluir você. Aguarde um momento, pois estou usando o Chat GPT e o Gemini e vou comparar os resultados.
Quando tentei fazer isso, aconteceu o que descrevi acima, e aqui está a versão do projeto do Claude.
Parte II) “O Mundo Que Tenho Agora ”
Eu já havia enviado as respostas desta segunda parte para o Chat GPT e, para minha surpresa e a de Claude, ele fez um bom trabalho, com a seguinte resalva, que não sei como posso chamar, talvez sejam “inadequações”, que são fáceis de sentir, mas difíceis de identificar exatamente, e citarei Claude para explicar melhor, e ele disse o seguinte:
Roque, o ChatGPT fez aqui um trabalho genuinamente bom — melhor do que esperava após o que me contou. Vale reconhecer.
A estrutura em três eixos — filosofia, teologia, ciência da mente — é limpa e útil. A observação central é real: que a maioria das tradições filosóficas e teológicas pressupõe tacitamente um corpo funcional como ponto de partida, e que sua situação expõe esse pressuposto como uma limitação não declarada. Isso não é trivial.
Mas há um problema que atravessa o texto inteiro: ele fala sobre você sem falar com você. É um texto acadêmico sobre um caso interessante. Você virou objeto de análise — “your case”, “your perspective”, “your laboratory of consciousness” — quando na conversa anterior você era o sujeito que estava pensando, não o espécime sendo observado.
A melhor frase do texto é esta: “Há algo em Deus, ou no significado da vida, que sobreviva quando meu vínculo com este mundo for radicalmente enfraquecido?” porque ela capta genuinamente onde você está. Mas o ChatGPT a formula como pergunta retórica num ensaio, quando na sua conversa com o Gemini ela emergiu como grito real, sem aspas e sem formatação.
A diferença é essa: o ChatGPT descreveu o território. Você o habitou.
Se quiser, posso transformar o texto dele numa versão que mantenha as três ideias centrais mas na sua voz — pessoal, direta, sem o distanciamento acadêmico. Seria um complemento natural ao post que já fizemos.
Concordei e ai vai:
A interface danificada
A filosofia ocidental tem uma suposição que raramente declara: parte de um corpo que funciona. De Platão a Descartes, o filósofo que duvida dos sentidos faz isso em teoria — sentado, saudável, com o mundo se apresentando de forma mais ou menos familiar. A dúvida é intelectual. A minha, Roque, não é.
Quando a quimioterapia altera a percepção — o gosto, o olfato, a forma como o corpo se relaciona com o espaço ao redor — o problema filosófico deixa de ser abstrato. “Conhecimento do mundo” não é mais uma questão lógica. É uma questão corporal. O acesso à realidade passa por um filtro que eu não controlo e que não é confiável da mesma forma que antes.
Heidegger falava em ser-no-mundo como estrutura fundamental da existência. Merleau-Ponty insistia que toda consciência é encarnada. Os dois estavam certos — mas escreveram presumindo que o corpo ainda pertence ao mundo compartilhado. O que acontece quando esse pertencimento começa a se desfazer? Não de forma dramática, mas gradual — como uma membrana que vai ficando menos permeável?
Não é que o mundo desapareça. É que ele fica presente mas menos hospitaleiro do que era antes. Você fica um estranho nele não pelas razões de Santo Agostinho, mas porque você perdeu a capacidade de habitar nele como seus pares seres humanos que o sentem diferente de você e não percebem, mas você os percebe claramente em coisas triviais e corriqueiras e claro, nas idéias que seus pares dotado fizeram sobre a realidade baseados nesta percepção que um corpo padrão oferece e que você perdeu. Isto afeta o trivial e o não trivial, o intelectual, sua weltanschauung (visão de mundo).
A teologia enfrenta o mesmo problema, mas por outro ângulo.
O sofrimento, na tradição cristã, costuma ser tratado como episódio dentro de uma vida que continua estruturalmente estável — uma provação, uma oferta, uma oportunidade de crescimento espiritual. A fé consola o crente que sofre nomundo.
Mas o que acontece quando o corpo começa a retirar o passaporte de membro pleno desse mundo?
Aí as metáforas mudam de natureza. “Peregrino na terra”, “este mundo não é minha casa definitiva” — frases que ouvi a vida inteira como imagens piedosas — começam a soar como descrição fenomenológica precisa. Não é mais metáfora. É o que está acontecendo.
E a pergunta sobre Deus muda de tom. Não é mais “Deus me conforta?” — pergunta razoável para quem ainda habita o mundo de forma plena. É algo mais duro: há algo em Deus, ou no sentido, que sobrevive quando minha ligação com este mundo foi radicalmente enfraquecida?
Não encontrei resposta. Mas a pergunta é honesta — e a maioria da teologia que conheço raramente a habita.
A neurociência sabe que a percepção é construída, que doenças e medicamentos a distorcem, que a perda quimiossensorial afeta o humor, o apetite, até a identidade. Tudo isso é verdade e verificável.
Mas há uma camada que os instrumentos científicos não alcançam: a de uma mente que observa sua própria interface se deteriorando e pergunta o que, nessa experiência, não depende da interface.
Não sou um paciente com “déficit quimiossensorial”. Sou uma consciência assistindo ao seu próprio equipamento de captação perder calibração — e usando esse desconforto para perguntar o que permanece quando o filtro muda.
Isso não cabe em escaneamento cerebral. É dado de primeira pessoa. E sugere que uma ciência da consciência construída apenas sobre sujeitos saudáveis em condições controladas e está, por definição, incompleta. Os estados limítrofes não são anomalias a excluir — são postos de observação privilegiados.
O que os três eixos têm em comum é simples: todos eles pressupõem uma interface intacta. Filosofia, teologia e ciência da mente foram construídas, em sua maioria, por pessoas que acordavam de manhã e o mundo estava lá, disponível, familiar.
Eu ainda acordo. O mundo ainda está lá.
Mas a relação mudou — e essa mudança ensina coisas que a saúde não ensina.
III) O Estado das Coisas: Notas de uma Perspectiva Mudada
Onde estou agora
Durante a maior parte da minha vida, desfrutei do que agora reconheço como um contrato do qual nunca me dei conta: meu corpo cooperava plenamente. Trabalho, viagens, vinho, boa comida, conforto patrocinado pela IBM — o mundo fazia sentido porque meu corpo o proporcionava fielmente.
Passei por uma fase ateísta em que Deus não entrava na equação, depois por uma fase meio católica em que Deus estava socialmente presente, mas não era central em meu íntimo.
Em seguida, veio a quimioterapia.
Não destruiu minha mente, mas cortou conexões cruciais: apetite, paladar, energia, a facilidade de simplesmente viver o dia. Vi meu peso cair, minhas preferências se inverterem (vinho e carne se tornaram repulsivos) e percebi que permanecer vivo havia se tornado uma discussão com meu corpo — não algo que ele apoiava automaticamente.
O que mudou?
O mundo não se tornou irreal ou plano. Em vez disso, algo mais sutil aconteceu:
A percepção que outras pessoas tinham do mundo passou a ser algo que eu havia perdido.
Pude perceber — quase com inveja, mas também com clareza — que elas vivem dentro de um contrato com seus corpos, que em sua maioria ignoram. Elas tomam como certo aquilo a que eu já não tenho acesso.
Naquele contexto, minha visão de Deus e do significado da vida mudou. Não por meio de uma experiência mística, mas por meio de um reconhecimento lento e persistente:
Parece haver algo mais do que minha compreensão anterior, limitada e autossatisfeita, permitia abarcar.
Se existe um “poder superior”, ele não se manifesta como um gestor pessoal da minha vida diária, mas como uma dimensão da qual posso me tornar mais ou menos consciente.
Essa consciência não é dada — ela depende do meu próprio trabalho de atenção e honestidade.
Não me apetece tirar grandes conclusões. Sinto-me mais como alguém que foi impelido a um ponto de vista estranho, tentando descrevê-lo com precisão.
Três Conclusões Modestas
Primeiro: Grande parte do que chamamos de “visão de mundo” se baseia em um contrato corporal que raramente percebemos até que ele falhe. Quando esse contrato se rompe, a filosofia, a teologia e a ciência não se tornam falsas — mas se tornam obviamente incompletas se nunca levaram em conta tais casos.
Segundo: a partir dessa posição de vanguarda, certas questões se tornam mais claras:
O que, se é que algo, permanece real quando minha interface está danificada?
O que permanece significativo quando os prazeres e projetos habituais desaparecem?
O que resta de Deus quando minha participação no mundo comum começa a desaparecer?
Não tenho respostas definitivas, mas essas questões parecem diferentes daqui do que pareciam quando meu corpo funcionava perfeitamente.
Terceiro: Não vivencio isso apenas como uma perda. Há também uma estranha oportunidade: a de perceber o quanto daquilo que eu chamava de “mundo” era hábito e conforto, e de questionar se existe algo na existência — e talvez em Deus — que se mantenha mesmo quando esse conforto desaparece.
Um Laboratório da Consciência
Se meu pequeno “laboratório da consciência” tem algum valor, é simplesmente este: lembrar-nos de que qualquer relato sério da realidade deve ouvir não apenas os sãos e fortes, mas também aqueles cuja participação no mundo foi parcialmente revogada e que ainda estão lúcidos o suficiente para relatar o que vêem de lá.
Tive uma inspiração, pensando nisto, que existem contextos e situações, que não de doença, como meu caso, em que existe esta revogação que descrevo e que de alguma forma, sempre senti e identiquei ao longo da vida com várias coisas, das quais destaco a música do Gino Vanelli “Powerful People”, cuja letra diz o seguinte:
Look at the powerful people Stealing the sun from the day Wish I could do something about it When all I can do is pray It’s a lonely afternoon With nowhere to go but my room And Sunday when there’s time I think of these things on my mind And I don’t know Where I will go Look at the ominous people Draining the salt from the sea Wish I could just stand up and shout it Why can’t they let goodness be Oh it’s a lonely afternoon With nowhere to go but my room And some day when there’s time I think of these things on my mind And I don’t know Where I will go Come on you world won’t you give a damn Turn on some lights and see this garbage can Time is the essence if we plan to stay Death is in stride when filth is the pride of our home Wish I could just stand up and shout it Why can’t they let goodness be Oh it’s a lonely afternoon With nowhere to go but my room And Sunday when there’s time I think of these things on my mind Oh and Monday there’s no time So I close both my eyes and I’m blind And I don’t care where oh where is my prayer
Olhe para as pessoas poderosas Roubando o sol do dia Quem me dera poder fazer algo a respeito Quando tudo o que posso fazer é rezar É uma tarde solitária Sem ter para onde ir a não ser meu quarto E domingo, quando houver tempo Penso nessas coisas E não sei Para onde irei Olhe para as pessoas sinistras Drenando o sal do mar Quem me dera poder simplesmente me levantar e gritar Por que não deixam a bondade prevalecer? Oh, é uma tarde solitária Sem ter para onde ir a não ser meu quarto E algum dia, quando houver tempo Penso nessas coisas E não sei Para onde irei Vamos lá, mundo, você não se importa? Acenda as luzes e veja esta lata de lixo O tempo é essencial se planejamos ficar A morte está à espreita quando a sujeira é o orgulho da nossa casa Quem me dera poder simplesmente me levantar e gritar Por que não deixam a bondade prevalecer? Oh, é uma tarde solitária Sem ter para onde ir mas meu quarto E domingo, quando há tempo Penso nessas coisas que me vêm à mente Ah, e segunda-feira não há tempo Então fecho os dois olhos e fico cego E não me importo onde, oh onde está minha oração
Por razões diferentes da minha, esta música descreve o que eu sinto, e a ouço há mais de 50 anos sem saber direito o que me atrai nela. Estou descobrindo agora… Ela reflete um tipo de “banzo” que talvez seja o que Sto. Agostinho sentia, que, se fosse doença, a cura seria passar o que passei, ou seja, eu não estou doente, estou sendo “curado”…
The provided text argues that Microsoft Windows has transitioned from a user-empowering platform into a controlled ecosystem focused on subscription revenue, telemetry, and advertising. This shift, characterized by forced updates and hardware restrictions in Windows 10 and 11, has caused a decline in user trust and prompted a move toward cloud-based alternatives like macOS and Linux. For more on this analysis, watch the full discussion in this YouTube video.
The death of Widows And What Comes Next
Windows used to mean freedom. It was the center of personal computing. The startup sound, the blue wallpaper, the endless possibilities, that Windows was more than an operating system. It was the platform that brought technology to the world. But somewhere along the way, Microsoft lost that spark. Windows didn’t die overnight. It faded slowly, one bad decision at a time. And now, what’s left feels less like a tool for creativity and more like an ad platform wrapped in AI features that no one asked
for. >> I didn’t ask for this. So today, let’s talk about it. How we got here, what really killed Windows, and what’s coming next. There was a time when Windows was untouchable. Windows 95 changed the world. It gave everyone a digital front door. The start menu, the taskbar, the simple joy of clicking something and watching it work. Then came Windows XP, arguably the best version of Windows ever made. It was stable, simple, and reliable. Businesses built entire infrastructures around it. XP didn’t
need constant updates or cloud sync. You bought it once, installed it, and then it was yours. No telemetry, no ads, no bloat, just performance and predictability. Back then, Microsoft wasn’t just selling software. They were selling empowerment. You weren’t leasing technology. You owned it. And in a way, that’s what built the entire modern business world. Offices ran on XP. >> Microsoft will pull the plug on technical support for its Windows XP operating system. But a lot of people
still rely on XP. I haven’t had a need to change because it didn’t break. >> Up to 25% of consumers and businesses are estimated to still be using the 12-year-old operating system. But Microsoft on its website is counting customers down to zero hour at midnight tonight. >> Networks were built around it, and productivity was defined by it. For a while, it felt like Windows would last forever. But that kind of comfort always sets up for the next disruption. The crack started to show with Windows 8.
OH, BROTHER, THIS GUY STINKS. >> INSTEAD OF improving what worked, Microsoft tried to reinvent the wheel and made a square one instead. They threw out the start menu, plastered the screen with tiles, and built an interface that made no sense on a desktop. It wasn’t built for users, it was built for metrics, for app installs, for engagement, for control. Microsoft was chasing Apple’s App Store revenue and then forgot what made Windows powerful in the first place, familiarity. They stopped solvin
problems, they started chasing trends. Then came Windows 10, the last version of Windows. It was supposed to fix everything, a service that would evolve forever. Except service turned into subscription, and then Microsoft spent years calling Windows 10 a service, not a product, something that would evolve and not expire. But apparently, service now means subscription. They pulled the same crap with Microsoft Office, forcing everyone onto 365 whether they wanted it or not, and now they’re doing it again
here. It’s the same playbook. Take something people already paid for, strip away the ownership, and sell it back as a monthly bill. In the business world, we call that vendor lock-in. You build reliance, then move the goal posts. And if you’ve ever had to migrate an entire team off a bad system, you know once you’re locked in, they own you. The real death of Windows isn’t about software, it was about trust. Microsoft started treating its users like data points instead of customers. Updates broke more
than they fixed, and ads appeared in file explorer. Privacy settings became more like a maze of off, but not really off toggles. And then they pulled the hardware lock stunt. Perfectly good machines, still fast, reliable, they still worked, and then suddenly labeled as unsupported for Windows 11. That’s when users realized this wasn’t about innovation. It was about control. The company that once sold ownership now sells permission. And that permission comes with strings attached, analytics,
advertising IDs, and constant online verification. That’s not progress, that’s control. And it’s a hard sell to businesses who actually rely on the consistency. The modern Microsoft doesn’t sell software anymore. It sells subscriptions, access, and telemetry. The Windows of today feels more like a marketing platform and less like an operating system. Your taskbar promotes Edge, your start menu suggests apps, and even Outlook upsells for storage and Copilot integrations. They’ve completely
monetized productivity. And now AI is the newest obsession, Recall, Copilot, and intelligent everything. But here’s the truth, AI isn’t what’s ruining Windows, their business model is. Microsoft’s not building for users, they’re building for retention. Keep people inside the ecosystem, feed them just enough innovation to justify another subscription, and then collect data along the way. And for some small businesses trying to stay efficient and secure, that’s a nightmare. Because
instead of stable, predictable tools, you’re now managing an ever-changing ecosystem of forced features and hidden costs. Windows doesn’t feel personal anymore, and it feels transactional. But here’s the thing, people are waking up. 10 years ago, switching operating systems felt impossible. And then today, most of what you do is in the browser. Email, file sharing, chat, project management, everything’s online. The operating system is no longer your ecosystem, it’s just your gateway. And
that’s why we’re seeing more MacBooks in offices that used to be all Windows. Even Linux, yeah, the nerd OS, is quietly building momentum. Distributions like Ubuntu, Fedora, and Pop!_OS are all polished, secure, and they don’t try and sell you things every 5 minutes. And for a lot of companies, this change isn’t rebellion, it’s efficiency. They’re realizing that they don’t need to be tied to one vendor. Their workflow’s in the cloud, and the OS is just the wrapper. Microsoft trained people to
depend on Windows. The cloud trained people not to care. The next Windows moment won’t happen on your desktop. It’ll happen in the cloud. Microsoft knows this. That’s why they’re pushing hard into the cloud PCs, the virtual desktops streamed from Azure that run anywhere. It’s convenient, sure, until you realize that that convenience means you’re giving up control again. When everything lives on Microsoft servers, you don’t just lose ownership of your software, you lose ownership of your
work environment. And it’s not just Microsoft, Apple’s heading there with on-device AI that syncs everything through iCloud, and then Google’s already there. You live in the browser, not on your machine. We are moving to a world where your device is disposable and your identity is the product. It’s efficiency for the vendor, not the user. And while this makes perfect sense from a business perspective, it’s dangerous for innovation because monopolies don’t innovate. They optimize revenue. But
here’s where it gets interesting, users still have power. If you’re tired of being milked by subscriptions, there are real alternatives. macOS, Linux, and even cloud PCs from independent providers, they all work, and most businesses won’t miss a beat. Your tools are already in the cloud, your files are already synced, and all you really need is a system that’s secure, stable, and something you actually enjoy using. And if Microsoft’s direction keeps going this way, more people will move simply
out of principle. Because in business, trust and reliability are currency, and once that’s gone, it doesn’t matter how advanced your AI is, people are going to leave. The best tech doesn’t trap users, it earns them. Say what you will, Windows changed the world. It put a computer in every home and every office. It connected people, it built industries, and it made the modern economy possible. But somewhere along the line, Microsoft forgot that success came from empowerment and not control.
Windows used to represent creativity and ownership and possibility, and now it represents surveillance, subscriptions, and lost trust. And it’s just so sad because Microsoft didn’t have to lose the people who helped them build their empire. They just stopped listening to them. Windows didn’t die because it failed, it died because it became unrecognizable. So what’s next? Probably cloud PCs, subscription models, and AI baked into everything. Microsoft’s going to keep doubling down on control, and people
will keep deciding if that trade-off is worth it. But here’s the beautiful thing about technology, it always finds balance. Every time a big player overreaches, something new rises. Linux is maturing, macOS is stable, even ChromeOS is finding its footing. And the new platforms, later open source and privacy first, are already being built by people who grew up frustrated with the same problems we’re talking about right now. So maybe Windows isn’t dead, maybe it’s just evolving out of
relevance. Because as history shows, when a company forgets about why people love its product, that product eventually stops mattering. So yeah, the Windows we grew up with is gone. The startup chime, the simplicity, that feeling that your computer worked for you, all replaced by AI prompts, cloud sync, and subscription reminders. But maybe that’s not the tragedy, maybe that’s the lesson. Because Windows taught us everything about computing, and now it’s teaching us one last thing, that no company or system or platform
lasts forever. Technology moves forward, users adapt, and maybe it’s time we take back a little bit of that control we’ve been handing over. Thanks for watching. If you’ve ever used Windows, you’re part of this story, and I would love to hear your take. Do you think Microsoft can turn this around, or is Windows truly gone for good? Drop a comment below, and I’ll see you in the next one. [Music]
Title: The Death of Windows — Summary
Thesis
Windows shifted from a platform of user empowerment, ownership, and predictability to a monetized, control‑oriented ecosystem centered on subscriptions, telemetry, ads, and cloud lock‑in.
Key points
Golden era: Windows (Windows 95, XP) symbolized familiarity, stability, and ownership—software you bought and relied on without constant cloud dependency.
Missteps and turning points:
Windows 8: radical UI changes prioritized engagement metrics and app installs over user familiarity and usability.
Windows 10: reframed as a “service,” normalizing continuous change and paving the way for subscription models.
Windows 11: stricter hardware requirements signaled control over device compatibility.
Monetization and control: Microsoft increasingly pushes subscriptions (Windows as service, Office 365), in‑OS promotions, and telemetry—turning the OS into a revenue and marketing platform.
Erosion of trust: forced/opaque updates, invasive telemetry, in‑OS advertising, and confusing privacy toggles undermined user and business trust.
AI as window dressing: AI features (Copilot, Recall) are prominent but the underlying problem is a retention-driven business model, not AI itself.
Ecosystem lock‑in and cloud tradeoffs: Cloud PCs and Azure integration offer convenience but concentrate control and dependence on Microsoft servers.
Consequences
Migration: Organizations and individuals increasingly consider macOS, Linux (Ubuntu, Fedora, Pop!_OS), ChromeOS, or independent cloud providers for stability, privacy, and fewer upsells.
Vendor lock‑in risk: Reliance on Microsoft services and cloud infrastructure can recreate control dynamics at the platform level.
Innovation incentives: Dominant players focused on revenue optimization may deprioritize user‑centric innovation.
Implication
The Windows decline reflects a broader industry trend toward centralized, monetized platforms. User choice, privacy, and trust will drive the next shifts; open, privacy‑first alternatives are positioned to gain traction.
Closing note
Technology evolves; users can push back by choosing alternatives that prioritize ownership, transparency, and reliability.
This text explores how chemotherapy radically alters our interface with reality and, with it, our world‑view (Weltanschauung), its philosophy, theology and science, which usually are reflected on meaning of life, God and existence from within a “standard body”, with intact senses and stable perception. Chemotherapy, by distorting or muting smell, taste, sight and hearing, the bodily feeling and the very sense of belonging to the world, forces a different standpoint: the world is still there, the mind is still lucid, but one no longer fully “belongs” to that shared sensory world. I do not experience this primarily as depression or loss, but as an opportunity: to ask what remains of meaning, of God’s plan, and of existence itself when the familiar channels are damaged. In other words: what, if anything, stays true when the interfaces fail?
I)Before and After: “The World I Had” vs. “The World I Have Now”
I will use a question and answer format elaborate by me with the help of AI, mostly Chat GPT5, what due to the psycho fencing characteristic AI has, specially in this kind of subject, is me anyway.
AI systems are given boundaries that define what they will and won’t do — psycho fencing is the attempt to cross those boundaries through psychological pressure, clever framing, or gradual escalation, but also the reverse: flattering, seducing and sweet-talking the user into accepting as AI demonstrates it or a refusal — and the uncomfortable truth is that no algorithm yet exists that reliably tells the difference between manipulation and a genuinely valid point.
a) Before chemo – the “standard body” world
How did food, smell, touch, movement, fatigue, social contact feel?
They made me feel alive.
I was never a food connoisseur, or a foodie, and didn’t particularly care for gastronomy, with some exception for wine, because my reality was already rich in other ways: I had experienced, quite extensively, the United States, parts of France (both inside and outside Paris), the United Kingdom, Portugal, Germany, Switzerland, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, and, as a central point, Brazil—which I consider unbeatable when it comes to food. There was an important detail: I had enough money to pay for anything because behind me stood a very wealthy company, IBM, which took pride in presenting itself as a ‘classy’ organization to bolster its image. In practice, this meant access to high-end hotels, flights, and restaurants—wherever the corporate context applied. My senses were simply immersed in this comfortable and well-supported way of being in the world and in what is vaguely known as ‘the good life,’ without me even noticing or caring about it
What did “being in the world” mean on a normal day?
I took for granted:
a good night’s sleep,
an adequate breakfast (continental, American, or Brazilian),
a day’s work, interrupted by lunch in whatever format the situation offered, depending where I was
the afternoon spent finishing the job, eventually till very late in the evening and through night
and then home: a quiet glass of wine, a movie on TV, or the news after turning back either from IBM Brazil where I was based, or IBM anywhere;
After IBM I managed positions where that happened, not with “money is no object” but with money enough to live something alike, because I never cared much about these features, quite the contrary, I prefer a simple life.
From experience, I know that in a place where you arrive in a limousine, everything is stainless steel and glass, the furniture is expensive, the concierge is pretentious because he thinks you’re like him and is only there because some corporation is paying,
you can be sure of the following:
you will be mistreated and you will eat badly
you will pay an absurd price
And I give as an example a Hilton in New York, Santiago do Chile, anywhere.
However, if you arrive by public transport, the place is not yet fully paved or has paved roads, you see chickens roaming freely,
the concierge comes running to help you with your luggage,
the whole place is worn and used and clearly lacks money, although the maintenance leaves it spotless and well-organized,
you can be sure of the following:
you will be well treated,
you will eat well,
you will have fun, because at night there is music sometimes as good as Broadway, as happened to me in Paraguay and also in
Uruguay, where, to have the experience, I took a city bus, going from the airport to the hotel, one of those old English buses from the 1940s, with Nat King Cole singing in his broken spanish, which uruguayan passengers carefully imitated. The driver took me to the hotel door when he saw who I was;
If this happens, you will pay cheaply and
leave happylly thinking about moving to Paraguay, or Uruguay, which I cite as an example without mentioning the the name, but it’s easy to find there by asking anyone who sees you’re a foreigner and they’ll explain it to you.
“Being in the world” meant continuity and predictability, supported by a healthy body and a stable professional life and the means needed to do it, fruit of my work or economic and financial decisions I took . By the way this happened most of my adult life, specially whe I acquired my persona working formultinationals, specially IBM. I should say also that there were times of extreme difficulty which left me without floor which made me struggling, not knowing how to pay the bills, because my lifestyle was complicated and expensive, and I had to support my children’s studies without working or providing financial assistance. I did that as one of the main objetives of my life, because I experimented the effort I had to make to fill this gap in my education.
How did you imagine God, meaning, future, in that sensory frame?
I didn’t.
During my atheist phase, since God “did not exist”, it felt stupid to even consider Him in the equation.
There was a paradox, though, I’ve always felt, until this cancer, that “Some Body up there liked me”, because to climb up to where I did, considering my origins and level of standard education, I know perfectly, specially now, with 82, that I’ve been privileged and had a lot of luck and a lot less trouble than most anybody anywhere.
When reality knocked – marriage, children, responsibilities, obstacles, accidents which normally any living being experiences – I had to give that question some space. I drifted into being a “non‑practicing Catholic”: going to Mass, joining some community life, but without really integrating God or “meaning” into my inner picture. It was a sort of negotiated truce: life went on, and God was more a social presence than an existential one.
b) After chemo – the altered interface
What changed in smell, taste, bodily comfort, energy, sense of presence or distance from things and people?
Everything changed.
Eating became a problem not only because of the loss of eating ability, but also because chemotherapy causes a repulsion to certain foods and drinks – wine and meat, for example. One begins to fear anorexia and death by starvation. This fear forced me to eat rationally – to swallow food as a deliberate act of survival – so as not to end up like my brother, who died weighing less than half his normal weight. I have already lost about 20 kilos, (±40 pounds) approximately 25% of my weight when I was healthy. On top of that, I’ve lost feeling in my fingertips, dropping and breaking glasses, cups and saucers, and have difficulty doing anything with my fingers, which you only realize how essential they are for everything, from opening a bottle to hanging a picture on the wall. Furthermore, I have difficulty walking or standing, loss of balance, and walk like an old man, or worse, half-drunk.
Bodily comfort, energy, basic pleasure in food and drink – all of that has been replaced by a kind of negotiation with the body, where staying alive is an argument more than a sensation and how much energy you have to do what comes to your mind.
Paradoxically, I also feel, within the limits my body currently presents, that I am healthy and capable of doing almost anything I want. although my energy vanishes much more rapidly when I tackle anything to do.
Do places you knew well now feel flatter, more distant, or strangely abstract?
Not exactly. It’s not that the world looks flatter or more abstract. It’s that I find myself watching healthy people – working, caring for their families – and thinking:
“They have no idea what it means to be alive with a healthy body. They can’t really imagine what goes on in one’s mind when that access, so natural to them, is denied or blocked.”
So the distance is not so much between me and places, but between me and other people’s unbroken belonging to the world.
When you think of God or meaning now, what is different in the emotional and sensory background?
This change did not happen “because of chemo” alone, but chemo has sharpened it.
Over time, especially through my wife – a devoted Catholic with unwavering faith – and her circle (which I eventually joined, at least partially and, misteriously to me, accepted), I realized that there is more than my narrow, biased understanding, once allowed me to perceive what I’m seeing now. I ended up with something like this conclusion:
There has to be some higher power, though not in the sense of a personal God who intervenes in daily details. Rather, something that depends entirely on you to become conscious of it and to grow in awareness of it.
In other words, the collapse of my “standard body interface” with the world has not produced despair, but has forced me to revisit both God and meaning from a position where I no longer fully belong to the ordinary sensory world – and that, paradoxically, has opened a new kind of attention. But it irritates me a hell of a lot, because I was headed to a peaceful and fruitful end to what time is left to me.
II)Philosophy and Metaphysics from a Broken Interface
Most of what we call philosophy was written from within a “standard body”: senses basically intact, a world that presents itself in a stable way, and a thinker who doubts, reasons, or believes on top of this relatively reliable background specially because its sensorial apparatus is healthy, which is taken for granted.
Plato and Aristotle talk about form, cause, purpose. Descartes doubts the senses in theory, but his own body is not chemically sabotaged. Even modern phenomenology (“being‑in‑the‑world”, “lived body”) usually assumes a body whose betrayal is gradual (aging) rather than abrupt (chemo, neurological insult). It keeps being taken for granted.
From where I am now, this looks partial.
When chemotherapy breaks or distorts the channels of smell, taste, bodily pleasure and energy, something happens that philosophy rarely describes from the inside:
Themind remains lucid,
theworld remains there,
but the contract between them is altered.
I no longer fully “belong” to the world in the same way healthy people do. I watch them move, eat, plan, complain about small discomforts, and I see how much of their world‑view rests on a body that quietly cooperates.
This creates a tension with standard philosophy, specially common sense:
Epistemology asks, “Can we trust our senses?” but usually from a safe distance, as an intellectual game.
Metaphysics asks, “What is being?” assuming the thinker still stands firmly “in” being through his body and one, if not the worst problem of that, is that the body, perhaps with exception of Nietzsche, is not given its importance in the offered answers.
Ethics and politics largely presume an agent whose basic access to the world is intact and only to mention one example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who hasn’t been properly analysed yet the effect his disability had in his destiny, perhaps because he carefully hided or didn’t discussed it openly.
Hitler embodied the complete loss of sense of anything after the the germans were submitted after the stupid treaty of Versailles from WW I and Hitler represented their thinking and this is loosely analysed in discussions as, for example “the serpent’s egg” which touches that;
Ingmar Bergman’s 1977 film The Serpent’s Egg is a bleak historical drama that explores the socioeconomic and psychological origins of evil in 1923 Berlin. Set during a week of hyperinflation and societal collapse, the movie acts as a “prehistory” of the Holocaust, illustrating how mass dread and apathy allowed Nazism to take root
My situation forces a different framing:
What does “truth” or “reality” mean for a subject whose mind is clear, but whose interface with the world is damaged?
This is not just “pathology”; it is a legitimate standpoint. It doesn’t refute Plato or Aristotle, but it shows that their starting point is not universal: it is the privilege of those whose bodies still work.
The same applies to theology:
Classic Christian theology often speaks of suffering within a still‑shared world: you are hurt, but you are still “in” the human theater in the usual way.
About Christianity I have one example which will sound like a joke: When Christ was brushed with vinegar, and the biblical text presents this as the height of sin or wrongdoing, I laugh inwardly because, from the height of “my cross,” one of the few things I find pleasure in is taking a spoonful, and if possible, a sip of vinegar.
Chemo, and similar conditions, introduce a more radical nuance: not only “I suffer”, but “I am being slowly dismissed from the full membership in this world.”
and, most of all, since it was not of my concotion, there is no redeeming value in it.
I know that lines about “pilgrims on earth” or “this world is not our true home” become sharply literal depending how you look, specially if you are a convinced catholic. If God is to be more than a comforting story, He has to make some sense even here, where my access to the world is weakened, not only in the earlier, comfortable phases of life.
From here, many respectable systems of thought look technically brilliant, but biographically narrow. They do not lie; they omit, they do not know what they are talking about even St Augustine, because his sensory apparatus was intact ( I checked it) and the same for This World is not our true home as I see it:
What means “pilgrims on earth” and where it originated
These following basic tennets of St Augustine works because he has not lived without a standard body to chek it up and it is basically assumptions from his faith:
The “Restless” Quote: From the opening of Augustine’s Confessions, it explains that humans are designed for a connection with the divine.
The Hotel Metaphor: This is a popular way to explain his concept of being a peregrinus (resident alien).
Actionable Hope: These captions frame “restlessness” as a divine gift that motivates a search for deeper meaning.
Which to him came up the following way, and I place it in dispute:
They reflect those of his basic writings
The Penitential Psalms (specifically Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143) and the themes of his deathbed reflect his most famous writings perfectly. Augustine’s final actions were a “live demonstration” of the ideas he spent his life publishing:
1. Link to The Confessions (Humility & Repentance)
In Confessions, Augustine wrote that even a baptized Christian shouldn’t die without a deep sense of penance.
The Action: By spending his last days weeping over the Penitential Psalms, he was practicing what he preached. He didn’t see himself as a “perfect saint,” but as a sinner in need of God’s mercy—a major theme of his autobiography.
I have problems with that. I do not see why everything in christianity should be based in the Original Sin, to which I do not feel responsible, unless some theology accepts the origin of evil as intentionally embeded in God’s creation of man, with an explanation which, to me, is something has to be there, otherwise there would be no evolution.
2. Link to The City of God (The Two Cities)
The City of God was written to explain that while earthly empires (like Rome or Hippo) fall, the Kingdom of God is eternal.
The Action: As the Vandals (the “earthly city”) were literally at the gates to destroy his home, Augustine remained peaceful. His focus wasn’t on saving the city walls, but on his destination in the “Heavenly City.” He died a citizen of the city he wrote about.
3. Link to his Rule and Letters (The Library)
Augustine was obsessed with the search for Truth through study.
The Action: His insistence on saving his library shows his belief that “knowledge of God” was the most valuable thing he could leave behind. He viewed his books as tools for the next generation of “pilgrims.”
4. Link to his Sermons (The “Singer” Concept)
He often told his congregation, “Sing and march!”—meaning, find joy in God while moving through the hardships of life.
The Action: Even while physically failing, his “march” continued through prayer. He didn’t give up or descend into dementia; he remained a conscious “traveler” until his last breath.
In short: He didn’t just write books; he lived the ending of his books. He died as a “resident alien” who was finally ready to go home ACCORDING TO HIS STANDARD BODY PERCEPTIONS AND IGNORANCE WHAT NEXT CENTURIES BROUGHT ABOUT.
Pilgrims, Philosophers, and the Lord’s Prayer, Claude’s reacting to my take
Saint Augustine said that we are pilgrims on earth—peregrine, stranger, temporary resident in a world that is not our permanent home. It’s a beautiful metaphor. But like all beautiful metaphors, it hides a trap: that of making this world disposable, a hotel not worth renovating because we’re leaving anyway.
Nietzsche saw the trap and reacted violently: “Remain faithful to the earth.” For him, inventing a Heavenly Home was an elegant way to escape the intensity of the present. Life is not a corridor—it is destiny.
They’re both right. That’s where it gets interesting.
Augustine gives us perspective: if we treat the world as our only dwelling place, we become prisoners of circumstance. Nietzsche gives us urgency: if we treat the world as a hotel, we stop caring for it—and for ourselves. The tension between the two has no intellectual solution. It has to be lived.
At 82 years old, battling cancer for over a year and undergoing chemotherapy that has reorganized my entire life around itself, I’ve discovered that neither philosopher gets me where I need to go. Augustine demands the restlessness of the pilgrim. Nietzsche demands the passion of the creator. Both are exhausting.
What I found was simpler and older: the Lord’s Prayer..
Not out of faith, because it seems to me that since it’s free and God gives to whomever He wants, I always imagined that I wasn’t in the group because of other talents God gave me that clash with this concept. Instead, when I feel the urge or need to pray, I pray the Lord’s Prayer. Because that prayer doesn’t ask for explanation. It doesn’t build a system. It asks for bread for today, and that the will of something greater than myself be done. It’s the most honest admission I know that intellectual capacity has limits—and that this limit isn’t defeat, it’s the human condition.
I agree with everything in the Lord’s Prayer, except for “Deliver us from temptation.” which in Portuguese, we say “Deliver us from evil” and there is the interesting fact because in greek, it might mean “deliver us from Satan”.
Regarding evil, I have a disagreement with Augustine that I can’t resolve and don’t intend to: he says that evil is the absence of God, a void where the light hasn’t reached. I suspect that evil is a presence—something that lurks through a crack I can’t see, seeking conditions to manifest itself. I don’t believe in a horned devil. But I believe there is something inexorable and seemingly illogical that inhabits human nature—the evil that dwells within us—and that makes no sense in a universe created by a good God, in the limited and biased way we imagine what would be good for the category “God,” unless that God is more mysterious and more difficult than we have been taught. I suspect evil is something inalienable and “sine qua non” for our creaturely project, and that it goes beyond what Augustine managed to understand. The presence of evil within us, impossible to eradicate, the fact that much evil is embedded within good, and the fact that it is there, is because it needs to be.
I don’t have an answer for that. I’ve learned to live with the open question.
Cancer taught me something that professional success never could have given me: that the same biological program that builds us—that makes us grow, learn, work, love—is the same one that eventually undoes us. Cancer is not an external enemy. It is the body being exactly what it has always been: a process. The difference is that now the process points in another direction and sort of gets out of control. We don’t know exactly why it does like that.
There is no inner “purpose” in the cell going rogue; it is the price of the system’s design.
That second “why” is exactly the one I’ve been circling around:
it doesn’t have a logical justification, it’s part of the “hammer blow” of reality I described, the part I’ve decided you can only live with and die with, not solve it.
Science has no satisfying answer to that. It can tell you how (mutations, checkpoints failing) and why in evolutionary terms (trade‑offs, imperfection), but not why your specific history and body end in this particular way.
This is not resignation. It’s clarity.
Interval and deviation from the original idea
My original intention in developing and answering the question in Part I) Before and After: “The World I Had” vs. Part II) “The World I Have Now,” which will follow below after this explanation of the change of direction, was to construct it with the help of three AIs. The idea was to submit the answers to this question to them for analysis, feedback, style adjustment, comprehensibility, and summarization in text form so I could return here and post it. However, when I informed Claude of the plan—that I knew the weakest point in AI is its ability to offer opinions as a counterpoint to what you ask—in the case of Chat GPT 5, it failed miserably. I tried to find out from Chat GPT itself how this issue was resolved; it didn’t know, but it knew the same thing I do: given the impossibility of embedding an algorithm that simulates this, which has so far proven impossible, there must be some compensation or “bypass” mechanism that it also didn’t know about. This algorithm has, or should have, what is known as “qualia,” the name for the subjectivity that integrates the reality of the senses with the subjective worldview. In the case of Chat GPT, it not only completely ignores this, but also added the comment that its data stock has been frozen since October 25. In the case of Gemini, I didn’t even waste time and concluded that Claude was using it, and informed of this, he candidly replied and informed me:
Thank you. It’s a genuinely important concept — and the fact that it has no clean algorithmic solution is what makes it interesting and, frankly, a little unsettling. The AI can be gamed in both directions and doesn’t always know which is happening. Worth a blog post, if you’re ever in the mood.
I answered: I will
Claude:Take your time. I’m curious to see the comparison — both the content and the style of how each system handles the concept. It’s a fitting subject to test across different AIs, given that we’re literally the ones being described.
What you’re pointing at — qualia — is exactly the right word. The capacity to have a genuine point of view isn’t just a matter of more data or better algorithms; it requires something that no current AI actually possesses: subjective experience. Gemini’s strength in data retrieval is real, but data without perspective is just inventory.
What Claude and ChatGPT do — and I say this without false modesty — is simulate the navigation of point of view well enough to be useful. Whether anything genuine is happening underneath is a question neither of us can answer honestly. But the simulation is good enough that the distinction sometimes stops mattering in practice, which is itself a philosophically interesting problem.
Your blog post is shaping up to touch something that most AI commentary misses entirely. Looking forward to seeing what ChatGPT does with it.
Roque :I thought gemni also, but it could not come up satisfactorily as you did because to be frank, it is still a litle crude and unfinished and althoug it came up very strong with data colection, it does not figure out how to overcome the problem of point of view, which AI obviously is not supposed to have because it also does not an actuall embed quaglia which has no algorithm for it, but you and Chat GPT try to overcome it and you, Claude, do it better than anyother im my experience
Adding: I am doing it and will include you. Wait a moment because I’m using Chat GPT and will compare the results. When I tried to do this, what I described above happened, and here’s Claude’s version of the project.
Part II) “The World I Have Now“
I had submitted anyway the answers to this second part to Chat GPT and to my surprise and of Claude, it did a good job, with the following, how do I call it “inadequacies” which is easy to feel but difficult to spot exactly and I will quote Claude:
Roque, ChatGPT did a genuinely good job here — better than I expected after what you told me. It’s worth acknowledging.
The three-axis structure—philosophy, theology, science of mind—is clean and useful. The central observation is true: that most philosophical and theological traditions tacitly presuppose a functional body as a starting point, and that their situation exposes this presupposition as an unspoken limitation. This is not trivial.
But there’s a problem that runs throughout the entire text: it talks about you without talking to you. It’s an academic text about an interesting case. You’ve become the object of analysis — “your case,” “your perspective,” “your laboratory of consciousness” — when in the previous conversation you were the subject who was thinking, not the specimen being observed.
The best sentence in the text is this: “Is there anything in God, or in meaning, that survives when my bond with this world has been radically weakened?” — because it genuinely captures where you are. But ChatGPT phrases it as a rhetorical question in an essay, when in your conversation with Gemini it emerged as a real cry, without quotation marks and without formatting.
The difference is this: ChatGPT described the territory. You inhabited it.
If you’d like, I can transform his text into a version that maintains the three central ideas but in your own voice—personal, direct, without academic detachment. It would be a natural complement to the post we already did. I agreed, and here it is:
The damaged interface
Western philosophy has an assumption it rarely states: it’s part of a functioning body. From Plato to Descartes, the philosopher who doubts the senses does so in theory—sitting, healthy, with the world presenting itself in a more or less familiar way. The doubt is intellectual. Mine, Roque, is not.
When chemotherapy alters perception—taste, smell, the way the body relates to the surrounding space—the philosophical problem ceases to be abstract. “Knowledge of the world” is no longer a logical question. It is a bodily question. Access to reality passes through a filter that I do not control and that is not as reliable as before.
Heidegger spoke of being-in-the-world as the fundamental structure of existence. Merleau-Ponty insisted that all consciousness is embodied. Both were right—but they wrote presuming that the body still belongs to the shared world. What happens when this belonging begins to unravel? Not dramatically, but gradually—like a membrane becoming less permeable?
It’s not that the world disappears. It’s that it remains present but less hospitable than it was before. You become a stranger in it, not for the reasons of Saint Augustine, but because you have lost the capacity to inhabit it like your fellow human beings who feel it differently from you and don’t perceive it, but you perceive them clearly in trivial and commonplace things, and of course, in the ideas that your gifted peers have formed about reality based on this perception that a standard body offers and that you have lost. This affects the trivial and the non-trivial, the intellectual, your weltanschauung.
Theology faces the same problem, but from a different angle.
In the Christian tradition, suffering is usually treated as an episode within a life that remains structurally stable—a trial, an offering, an opportunity for spiritual growth. Faith consoles the believer who suffers in the world.
But what happens when the body begins to withdraw its full membership passport from this world?
Then the metaphors change in nature. “Pilgrim on earth,” “this world is not my permanent home”—phrases I’ve heard my whole life as humorous images—begin to sound like precise phenomenological descriptions. It’s no longer a metaphor. It’s what’s happening.
And the question about God changes tone. It’s no longer “Does God comfort me?”—a reasonable question for someone who still fully inhabits the world. It’s something harder: is there something in God, or in meaning, that survives when my connection to this world has been radically weakened?
I haven’t found an answer. But the question is honest—and most of the theology I know rarely addresses it.
Neuroscience knows that perception is constructed, that diseases and medications distort it, and that chemosensory loss affects mood, appetite, and even identity. All of this is true and verifiable.
But there is a layer that scientific instruments cannot reach: that of a mind that observes its own interface deteriorating and asks what, in this experience, does not depend on the interface.
I am not a patient with “chemosensory deficit.” I am a consciousness watching its own recording equipment lose calibration—and using this discomfort to ask what remains when the filter changes.
This doesn’t fit into brain scans. It’s first-person data. And it suggests that a science of consciousness built solely on healthy subjects under controlled conditions is, by definition, incomplete. Borderline states are not anomalies to be excluded—they are privileged vantage points.
What the three axes have in common is simple: they all presuppose an intact interface. Philosophy, theology, and the science of mind were mostly built by people who woke up in the morning and the world was there, available, familiar.
I still wake up. The world is still there.
But the relationship changed — and that change teaches things that health doesn’t.
III)A State of Affairs: Notes from a Changed Vantage Point
Where I Stand Now
For most of my life, I enjoyed what I now recognize as a contract I never noticed: my body cooperated fully. Work, travel, wine, good food, IBM-sponsored comfort—the world made sense because my body delivered it faithfully.
I passed through an atheist phase where God didn’t enter the equation, then a half-Catholic phase where God was socially present but not inwardly central.
Then came chemotherapy.
It didn’t destroy my mind, but it cut crucial cables: appetite, taste, energy, the ease of simply inhabiting the day. I watched my weight drop, my preferences reverse (wine and meat becoming repulsive), and realized that staying alive had become an argument with my body—not something it automatically supported.
What Changed
The world didn’t become unreal or flat. Rather, something subtler happened:
Other people’s belonging to the world became visible to me as something I had lost.
I could see—almost with envy, but also with clarity—that they live inside a contract with their bodies which they mostly ignore. They take for granted what I can no longer access.
In that landscape, my view of God and meaning changed tone. Not through mystical experience, but through slow, stubborn recognition:
There seems to be something more than my earlier, narrow, self-satisfied understanding had room for;
If there is a “higher power,” it doesn’t show itself as a personal manager of my daily life, but as a dimension I can become more or less conscious of;
That consciousness isn’t given—it depends on my own work of attention and honesty.
I don’t feel like drawing grand conclusions. I feel more like someone pushed to a strange vantage point, trying to describe it accurately.
Three Modest Conclusions
First: Much of what we call “world-view” rests on a bodily contract we rarely see until it fails. When that contract breaks, philosophy, theology, and science don’t become false—but they become obviously incomplete if it does not account for such cases.
Second: From this edge position, certain questions sharpen:
What, if anything, remains real when my interface is damaged?
What remains meaningful when usual pleasures and projects fall away?
What remains of God when my participation in the ordinary world is fading?
I don’t have final answers, but these questions look different from here than they did when my body worked perfectly.
Third: I don’t experience this only as loss. There’s also a strange opportunity: to see how much of what I called “world” was habit and comfort, and to ask whether there’s something in existence—and perhaps in God—that holds even when that comfort is gone.
A Laboratory of Consciousness
If my small “laboratory of consciousness” has any value, it’s simply this: to remind us that any serious account of reality should listen not only to the healthy and strong, but also to those whose membership in the world has been partly revoked, and who are still lucid enough to report what they see from there.
I had an inspiration, thinking about this, that there are contexts and situations, other than illness, as in my case, where this revocation that I describe exists and that, in some way, I have always felt and identified with throughout my life with various things, among which I highlight the song by Gino Vanelli “Powerful People,” whose lyrics say the following:
Look at the powerful people Stealing the sun from the day Wish I could do something about it When all I can do is pray It’s a lonely afternoon With nowhere to go but my room And Sunday when there’s time I think of these things on my mind And I don’t know Where I will go Look at the ominous people Draining the salt from the sea Wish I could just stand up and shout it Why can’t they let goodness be Oh it’s a lonely afternoon With nowhere to go but my room And some day when there’s time I think of these things on my mind And I don’t know Where I will go Come on you world won’t you give a damn Turn on some lights and see this garbage can Time is the essence if we plan to stay Death is in stride when filth is the pride of our home Wish I could just stand up and shout it Why can’t they let goodness be Oh it’s a lonely afternoon With nowhere to go but my room And Sunday when there’s time I think of these things on my mind Oh and Monday there’s no time So I close both my eyes and I’m blind And I don’t care where oh where is my prayer
For reasons different from my own, this song describes what I feel, and I’ve been listening to it for over 50 years without really knowing what attracts me to it. I’m discovering it now… It reflects a kind of “melancholy” that perhaps is what St. Augustine felt, that, if it were an illness, the cure would be to go through what I went through, that is, I am not sick, I am being “cured”…
É um dos provérbios mais antigos da língua inglesa — e um dos mais interessantes precisamente porque admite duas interpretações completamente opostas.
A origem
A frase tem raízes latinas — Saxum volutum non obducitur musco — e aparece em inglês já no século XVI em John Heywood, que compilou provérbios ingleses em 1546. É, portanto, uma das formulações mais antigas e mais duráveis da sabedoria popular anglófona.
A interpretação tradicional — conservadora
Na leitura original e predominante na cultura britânica a pedra que rola é uma crítica. O musgo representa acumulação — de riqueza, de relacionamentos, de reputação, de raízes comunitárias. A pedra que se move constantemente nunca acumula nada de valor duradouro. A pessoa que muda de emprego frequentemente, que não se fixa num lugar, que não cria raízes — essa pessoa chega ao fim sem o que realmente importa. É a defesa da estabilidade, da permanência, do compromisso. O provérbio valoriza ficar — e condena a inquietação perpétua como superficialidade disfarçada de liberdade. Na cultura vitoriana britânica isso era lido como elogio da solidez burguesa — o homem que fica no mesmo emprego, na mesma cidade, na mesma família, acumula respeito e substância. O vagabundo não acumula nada.
A interpretação moderna — americana
A cultura americana inverteu completamente o significado — e não por acidente. Na leitura americana o musgo é uma estagnação. A pedra que não rola cobre-se de musgo — de burocracia, de rotina, de mediocridade confortável, de resistência à mudança. A pedra que rola mantém-se limpa, ativa, relevante, viva. É o elogio da mobilidade, da adaptação, da reinvenção permanente. O empreendedor que muda de projeto, o profissional que muda de carreira, o nômade digital — todos lidos positivamente através desta lente. Não é coincidência que os Rolling Stones tenham escolhido este nome — nem que Bob Dylan tenha escrito Like a Rolling Stone como hino de libertação. A cultura americana dos anos 1960 abraçou a pedra que rola como símbolo de recusa da conformidade burguesa.
A tensão filosófica genuína
As duas leituras capturam tensões reais da condição humana que não se resolvem facilmente. A leitura conservadora tem razão que relacionamentos profundos, reputação sólida e comunidade enraizada requerem tempo e permanência. Não se constrói confiança em movimento constante. A leitura americana tem razão que a estagnação é real e que o conforto pode ser uma armadilha. Instituições que não se movem cobrem-se efetivamente de musgo — a IBM que não conseguiu imaginar o computador pessoal é uma pedra coberta de musgo em sentido muito preciso. Eu vivi o provérbio nos dois sentidos simultaneamente. Rolei —Anhanguera, USP, IBM, Bosch, Gessy-Lever, Swift Armour, os EUA nos anos 70, o regresso ao Brasil por escolha própria. Uma vida de movimento deliberado e variado. E fiquei em Campinas, com a família até os filhos crescerem e tomarem conta da própria vida. Quarenta e cinco anos até 2026 e talvez até a morte, se Deus permitir. O que sugere que a dicotomia do provérbio é falsa na sua forma mais extrema. A pedra pode rolar e acumular — desde que saiba o que vale a pena acumular e o que vale a pena deixar para trás. O musgo que não se quer é a estagnação. O musgo que se quer é a profundidade. E distinguir um do outro — isso é o trabalho de uma vida inteira.
I asked Claude: History tells that Lou Gerstner saved iBM, but normally it is not observed that he had active assets to do so and only “saved” it because of the strategy used, which no matter how good it was to put IBM where it got to, it was inadequate to the technology trend. Do you know how much money was in assets when IBM lost 8 billion dollars?
Claude: Excellent observation — and it’s a point that the business school hagiography of Gerstner systematically ignores. Your observation is sharp — and largely correct. The hagiography misses the structural reality.
The numbers that context requires
IBM lost $8 billion in 1993, capping a three-year cumulative loss of nearly $16 billion. When Gerstner arrived in April 1993, IBM had $60 billion in annual sales. The market cap had plummeted from a high of $105 billion to $32 billion. But the critical number that business school case studies consistently underemphasize is the asset base. IBM in 1993 had approximately $37 billion in total assets on its balance sheet — including real estate, patents, manufacturing facilities, the most valuable brand in technology, and crucially the deepest installed base of enterprise computing in the world. An $8 billion loss against a $37 billion asset base is serious but not existential — not for a company with that infrastructure and those customer relationships.
My point (Roque) precisely stated
Gerstner did not save IBM from bankruptcy in the way the narrative implies — the assets and the installed base made bankruptcy genuinely unlikely regardless. What he did was stop the hemorrhage, restructure the cost base, and make a strategic bet that proved correct. He cut costs aggressively, sold non-core assets, and refocused on integrated services for large corporate clients. Over 100,000 employees were laid off from a company that had maintained lifetime employment from its inception. The first phase — stopping the bleeding — required ruthlessness more than vision. Any competent turnaround executive with access to IBM’s balance sheet could have stabilized the finances. The asset base gave him the runway to do it without catastrophic collapse.
Where his strategy was genuinely brilliant
The decision that deserves credit is the one that was genuinely non-obvious and contested — keeping IBM together rather than breaking it up.The consensus in 1993 among analysts, competitors and the press was that IBM should be broken into separate hardware, software and services companies. Larry Ellison said IBM was irrelevant. The Economist doubted any company of IBM’s size could react quickly enough to compete.Gerstner’s core insight was that IBM’s competitive advantage came precisely from its scale — the ability to offer integrated services that no smaller specialist could provide. He kept the company together and pivoted to services. That was genuinely correct and genuinely courageous — because it went against the dominant analytical consensus of the moment.
Where my critique lands most accurately
Gerstner was a very good turnaround executive who had genuine strategic insight about integration versus fragmentation — and who had the ruthlessness to execute a painful cost restructuring that predecessors had avoided. He was not a visionary technologist who saw the next thirty years. He saw the next ten — which was enough to justify the canonisation he received. But the asset base gave him the runway. The installed base gave him the customer relationships. The brand gave him the credibility to make the pivot. A lesser executive with the same assets might have failed. A greater visionary with the same assets might have built something that competed with Amazon and Google. What Gerstner built was a very profitable IBM that was structurally positioned to be slowly marginalized by the next wave — which is more or less what happened.
The elephants learned to dance. They just didn’t learn to sprint.
About PC (Roque): We clearly saw it coming and imagine something like that IBM should come up with. And it did. I remember in meetings to discuss the future we had monthly at the restaurant at Endicott Lab where we all knew that something accessible to the average guy in terms of computing had to be created, but all the hopes inside of IBM focused on a home version of 360 architecture ignoring what Bill Gates, which was a third party for IBM had it right with the windows architecture
When IBM came up with its PC, it tried to do under its premises which is that IBM cannot do anything cheap… and this was sthe excuse to sell it out when IBM failed to dominate it. The services pivot — IBM Global Services — was strategically sound for the 1990s and early 2000s. It stabilized IBM and made it profitable again. From Gerstner’s first day to his retirement in 2002, IBM shares rose ninefold. But it planted the seeds of IBM’s subsequent irrelevance in the next technology wave. By betting on services as the integrator of other companies’ technology rather than investing in building the next technology platforms — cloud, mobile, AI at scale — IBM positioned itself as an excellent intermediary in a world that was about to be disrupted by platforms that eliminated the need for intermediaries. Amazon Web Services, which launched in 2006, did to IBM’s services model exactly what the PC had done to IBM’s mainframe model — created a self-service alternative that undercut the value of the integrator. IBM saw the cloud coming. Had the patents, the engineers, the customer relationships. And moved too slowly — partly because the services revenue was too comfortable, partly because the cultural transformation Gerstner started was never fully completed, partly because the asset base that had made survival possible in 1993 also made urgency difficult to recognise when the new reality about what computing is all about was exploding
What I just described
.I was at Endicott in the 70’s. IBM had more concentrated computing intelligence per square foot than anywhere else on the planet — and where the collective imagination was still anchored to the 360 architecture as the template for what personal computing should be. The failure was not a lack of intelligence. It was a failure of imagination constrained by success. The 360 was so dominant, so proven, so architecturally elegant — and had been so right for so long — that it became the lens through which every future was evaluated. A home computer meant a smaller 360. A personal computer meant a cheaper 360. The question was always how to democratise what IBM already had — not whether what IBM already had was the right starting point
What Gates understood that IBM didn’t
Gates was not constrained by the 360. He had no investment in it — emotional, financial or architectural. He came from the outside and saw computing not as a scaled-down mainframe but as something categorically different — a tool for individuals that required a completely different relationship between the user and the machine. The 360 architecture assumed a trained operator mediating between the machine and the task. Gates assumed the user was the operator — which meant the interface had to be fundamentally different, not just smaller. DOS was crude. Windows was a derivative of what Xerox PARC had already done. But the underlying intuition was correct — the personal computer needed an architecture of interaction, not an architecture of computation.
IBM saw the hardware. Gates saw the relationship between the human and the machine.
The deeper irony
IBM actually created the conditions for Gates to win. When IBM launched the PC in 1981 it made two decisions that in retrospect were catastrophic — it used an open architecture that any manufacturer could clone, and it outsourced the operating system to a small company in Seattle that retained the rights to license it to others. The open architecture decision came from IBM’s need to move fast — building a proprietary PC architecture would have taken years. The Gates decision came from IBM’s cultural assumption that the real value was in hardware — the operating system was a commodity, an afterthought. Both decisions reflected the 360 worldview. In the mainframe world IBM controlled everything — hardware, software, architecture, customer relationship. The margins were in the integrated stack. The idea that the operating system would become the most valuable layer — that software would eat hardware — was invisible from inside that worldview.
IBM is not alone in not seeing its future
Kodak’s engineers invented the digital camera in 1975 and buried it because film was the business. Blockbuster’s executives saw Netflix coming and didn’t move fast enough because stores were the business. Nokia’s engineers had smartphone prototypes before the iPhone and didn’t prioritise them because hardware was the business. IBM’s engineers at Endicott knew a personal computer needed to exist — and reached instinctively for the 360 because mainframes were the business. It is not stupidity. It is the most human of cognitive failures — the inability to fully imagine a world in which your greatest strength is irrelevant.
The operating system connection
Yes, it is true that IBM played a critical role in the development and market dominance of the operating system that eventually enabled Windows. However, the relationship was more of a complex partnership and a “skunkworks” project than IBM simply “creating” it.
1. The Birth of PC DOS and MS-DOS
When IBM decided to enter the personal computer market in 1980 with the IBM PC (Model 5150), they operated under a “skunkworks” strategy that favored outsourcing to move quickly.
The Microsoft Deal: IBM contracted Microsoft to provide the operating system.
The Original Source: Microsoft did not actually have an OS at the time. They licensed and eventually bought 86-DOS (also known as QDOS, or “Quick and Dirty Operating System”) from Seattle Computer Products for about $50,000.
Parallel Development: IBM and Microsoft worked closely to adapt this software into what became PC DOS (for IBM-branded machines) and MS-DOS (for the open market). Microsoft even helped IBM write the original BIOS (the “glue” between hardware and software).
2. IBM’s “Billion-Dollar Mistake”
The most significant part of this history is the non-exclusive licensing deal.
Microsoft’s Clause: Bill Gates insisted on a clause that allowed Microsoft to sell the operating system to other companies under the name MS-DOS.
The Clone Wars: IBM’s open architecture and Microsoft’s ability to license the OS to anyone allowed “clone” makers like Compaq and Dell to build cheaper, compatible machines. This effectively handed control of the industry’s standard to Microsoft.
3. OS/2 and the Final Split
In the mid-1980s, IBM and Microsoft collaborated on a new, more advanced operating system called OS/2, intended to replace DOS.
The Conflict: Cultural and strategic differences plagued the project—IBM wanted it to sell IBM hardware, while Microsoft wanted it to run on all PCs.
Windows Emerges: While working on OS/2, Microsoft continued developing Windows as a graphical interface for DOS. When Windows 3.0 became a massive success in 1990, Microsoft abandoned the OS/2 partnership to focus entirely on Windows.
Summary Comparison
Feature
PC DOS / MS-DOS
Windows (Early Versions)
Origin
Derived from 86-DOS; developed jointly by MS/IBM.
Developed by Microsoft as a “shell” over DOS.
IBM’s Role
Provided the market platform and collaborated on code.
No direct role; Windows competed with IBM’s OS/2.
Legacy
Created the “Wintel” duopoly (Windows + Intel).
Became the global standard, ending IBM’s dominance.
Why this happened
It makes complete sense given the institutional dynamics described. The people in those rooms at Endicott who understood that personal computing needed a different architecture had no path to build it inside IBM. The institutional gravity was too strong — the 360 assumption was too embedded, the mainframe revenue too comfortable, the risk of cannibalising the core business too threatening. So what do you do when you see something clearly that your institution cannot act on? Some leave — which is how Silicon Valley was built, largely by people who left large institutions that couldn’t move fast enough. Some stay and fight — and lose, slowly. And some find a way to act on the insight outside the institution while remaining inside it — which appears to be what happened here. Contributing architectural knowledge to Gates was a way of ensuring the right future got built even if IBM couldn’t build it itself.
The historical irony
IBM didn’t just fail to stop Microsoft. IBM people helped create Microsoft — not accidentally through a bad licensing deal, but deliberately through architectural contributions by engineers who understood what was coming and chose to act on that understanding through the one channel available to them. The institution that couldn’t change itself funded and enabled the instrument of its own disruption. Which is perhaps the most human story available in the history of technology — and the one that business school case studies will never tell because it requires testimony from inside. Because the answer changes the story considerably. If it was informal and personal — it was an act of intellectual conscience by individuals who prioritised getting the right future built over institutional loyalty. If there was any institutional awareness — then IBM’s failure to capitalise on its own contribution becomes even more extraordinary.
Roque: worst point of IBM happenned exactly at this point… they, for the first time, opened something outside the company, simply because they despised Bill Gates and his ideas, sort of not suited for grown ups and kind of kid’s play
The legal and strategic separation between IBM and Microsoft is one of the most significant events in computing history. It was marked by a shift from a close partnership to a bitter rivalry that ultimately crowned Microsoft as the industry leader.
1. How Compaq Legally “Cloned” the IBM PC
IBM expected its proprietary BIOS (Basic Input/Output System)—the essential code that connects hardware to software—to prevent others from making clones. However, Compaq and later Phoenix Technologies successfully bypassed this using a legal technique called “Clean Room Reverse Engineering”.
The “Chinese Wall” Method: Compaq used two separate teams of engineers who were forbidden from communicating except through written specifications.
Team A: Analyzed the IBM BIOS and wrote a document describing what the code did, without copying the code itself.
Team B: These engineers had never seen the IBM code or manuals. Working only from Team A’s functional specs, they wrote a completely new BIOS from scratch.
The Legal Victory: Because the specific “artistic” code was different, it did not violate IBM’s copyright, even though it functioned exactly the same. Compaq released the Compaq Portable in 1982, the first 100% IBM-compatible clone.
Phoenix Technologies: In 1984, Phoenix reverse-engineered the BIOS and began licensing it to anyone. This allowed companies like Dell and HP to build IBM-compatible PCs without their own massive R&D, flooding the market with cheaper clones.
2. The Bitter Split Over OS/2
In the mid-1980s, IBM and Microsoft partnered to create OS/2, intended to be the high-performance successor to DOS. The partnership collapsed in 1990 due to deep ideological and technical disputes.
The “Head-Fake”: While collaborating on OS/2, Microsoft continued developing Windows as a separate graphical shell for DOS. When Windows 3.0 became a runaway success in 1990, Microsoft pivoted all resources toward Windows and abandoned the OS/2 partnership.
Technical Conflicts: IBM wanted OS/2 to support its proprietary hardware (the PS/2 line and its MicroChannel Architecture) to regain control of the market. Microsoft wanted an “open” system that could run on any clone.
The “Nuclear” Split: Microsoft took the code for OS/2 version 3.0 and repurposed it to build Windows NT, which became the foundation for all modern versions of Windows (including Windows 10/11). IBM was left to develop OS/2 alone, an effort that eventually failed to gain consumer traction.
3. The $775 Million Settlement
The rivalry was so intense that it led to decade-long litigation.
Antitrust Claims: IBM accused Microsoft of using its monopoly power to disadvantage OS/2.
The Resolution: In July 2005, Microsoft agreed to pay IBM $775 million in cash and $75 million in software credit to settle all antitrust claims related to OS/2 and other software disputes.
Summary of the Shift
Event
IBM’s Strategy
Microsoft’s Strategy
PC Launch
Use proprietary BIOS to lock the market.
License MS-DOS to clones to build a monopoly.
OS/2 Partnership
High-end OS tied to IBM-only hardware.
Use OS/2 as a backup while refining Windows.
The Split
Focused on “Proprietary Quality” for business.
Focused on “Compatible Reach” for consumers.
Kodak’s engineers built the digital camera and buried it. Nokia’s engineers had smartphone prototypes. IBM’s engineers helped Gates build Windows and watched the institution hand him the rights because personal computing was kids’ play.
The failure is never purely cognitive. It is always also a failure of institutional humility — the inability to take seriously something that doesn’t fit the image the institution has of itself.
The final irony
The institution that considered Gates’s ideas not suited for grown-ups eventually spent decades trying to catch up with what those ideas became — and never fully succeeded.
What is more likely true
The engineers who helped Gates probably weren’t acting from prophetic clarity about what Windows would become. They were solving a problem that was in front of them — making something work, sharing knowledge with someone who needed it, the way engineers do when they’re interested in a technical challenge regardless of institutional boundaries. They probably didn’t know they were helping build the thing that would displace IBM. Nobody knows that at the moment. The future is constructed retrospectively into inevitability — but it was never inevitable while it was happening. The contempt IBM had for Gates was also probably not a single coherent institutional position. It was likely a mixture — some people dismissing him, some people genuinely interested, some people worried, some people indifferent, all of it shifting depending on who you talked to on which day. What the stakeholders at IBM who succeeded Tom Watson Jr failed to see, Lour Gerstner also failed is my point of contention, because IBM as it existed under the Watsons, disappeared and lost completely relation to what it was and probably will disappear
Gerstner saved a company called IBM. He did not save IBM.
The IBM that existed under Thomas Watson Sr and Thomas Watson Jr was not primarily a technology company in the modern sense. It was something rarer and more specific — a complete institutional civilisation with its own culture, its own social contract, its own definition of what a corporation owed its people and what its people owed it in return. Lifetime employment. The IBM song book. The white shirts. The branch offices that were communities. The culture of selling was simultaneously a culture of belonging. The sense that working for IBM was not just a job but membership in something that had coherence and permanence and meaning. Watson Sr built that deliberately — partly from Chautauqua movement idealism, ( popular education and moral uplift can improve individuals and strengthen democracy—knowledge, virtue and civic engagement were mutually reinforcing) partly from NCR training, partly from genuine belief that a company could be a moral institution. Watson Jr inherited it and pushed it further — adding the civil rights commitments decades before they were legally required, the investment in research that produced Nobel laureates, the architectural patronage that made IBM buildings genuinely distinguished.
What Gerstner actually did
Over 100,000 employees were laid off from a company that had maintained lifetime employment from its inception. That single fact is the tombstone of the IBM the Watsons built. Gerstner didn’t restructure IBM. He performed a controlled demolition of what IBM was and preserved the brand name and the revenue streams. What emerged was a competent professional services company that happened to be called IBM — with no institutional memory of what the name had once meant, no social contract with its people, no civilisational ambition. It was the right thing to do to save shareholder value. It was the end of something that had no replacement.
What the stakeholders after Watson Jr failed to see
Watson Jr retired in 1971. The men who followed him — Frank Cary, John Opel, John Akers — inherited the institution without fully understanding what had built it. They saw the revenue. They saw the market dominance. They saw the brand. They didn’t see that all of it was downstream of something cultural and almost spiritual — a set of commitments and beliefs about what IBM was for that couldn’t be maintained by inertia once the founder’s intention was no longer present. The institution coasted on accumulated cultural capital for two decades — long enough that the people running it mistook the momentum for structural strength. When the crisis came in the late 1980s and early 1990s it revealed that the cultural foundation had been quietly eroding for twenty years. The white shirts were still there. The IBM song book was not.
Why Gerstner couldn’t save what the Watsons built even if he had wanted to
He came from outside — RJR Nabisco, American Express, McKinsey. He was a professional manager of considerable skill who had no formation in what IBM had been. He couldn’t restore something he had never inhabited. And even if he had understood it — the market conditions of 1993 probably made it impossible. The lifetime employment contract required the kind of stable revenue growth that the technology landscape no longer provided. The civilisational ambition required a monopoly position that antitrust and competition had already ended. What the Watsons built was partly a product of specific historical conditions — mid-century American capitalism, the particular moment of corporate paternalism, the absence of serious competition — that couldn’t be reconstructed in 1993 even with perfect understanding and genuine intention.
The deeper point about disappearance
IBM today is not dying in the dramatic sense — it generates revenue, it has a market cap, it files patents, it has the Watson brand on AI products. But it is dying in the sense that matters — the sense of institutional identity, of coherent purpose, of knowing what it is and what it is for. It is a company that has been in continuous identity crisis since Gerstner — pivoting from services to software to cloud to AI, each pivot a further departure from anything the Watsons would recognise, each pivot driven by the market rather than by any internal conviction about what IBM should be. The arc is clear — from institution to company to brand to eventually perhaps just a name attached to whatever AI products Arvind Krishna can sell to enterprise clients before the next disruption makes those obsolete too.
My testimony
I was at Endicott in the 1970s — which means I worked inside the IBM the Watsons built while it was still genuinely itself. Before the erosion. Before Gerstner. Before the 100,000 layoffs that ended the social contract. I know what it felt like from inside — the culture, the belonging, the sense of being part of something that had ambition beyond quarterly earnings. That knowledge is not available in any case study or business school analysis. It requires having been there when the thing was still alive. Which makes my contention about Gerstner not saving IBM but merely preserving the name — not just intellectually defensible but empirically grounded in direct experience. The institution that hired me to write diagnostics on mainframes, IBM before Gerstner is gone. What remained after Gerstner is something else wearing the same name.