To Walk A Blade’s Edge: The (Un)real and the Hacker [Part 2]

Share this post

In the previous article written by Karl, he gave us a great notion of how we can think about reality and existence according to a cyberpunk point of view. However, what do some theorists say about these subjects? If we consider that cyberpunk came about in the 80’s as a means to (among many other things) break with the strong scientific discourse presented in hard Sci-Fi, it is more concerned with human sciences. The bridges built between fiction and theory are what I would like to investigate here.

Keanu Reeves as Neo, in The Matrix
Scene from The Matrix, when Neo (Keanu Reeves) wakes up from the simulation

It is well known that The Matrix was heavily inspired by the work of the French philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard. The movie takes an approach in regard to the real and the virtual that follows the theorists’ conception of simulacra and simulation. Although he was much more concerned about the relationships between symbols and society (so it was like a semiotic approach), his ideas can be totally linked to the concept of virtual – and it is widely used in science fiction and academic research.

While simulacra (from the Latin simulacrum, which means likeness, similarity) are the representation of a person or a thing that may or may not have existed, simulation is the act of imitating something seen or based in a real-world process. The first time the term simulacra was recorded in English it was in the late 16th century, when it referred to a representation, such as a statue, a painting, but mostly a god. However, in the 19th century, it took on a secondary and inferior association: an image, something with no substance or the qualities of the original, a Doppelganger.

In Secret Writings, Baudrillard quotes: “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth – it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true”. Although he has credited this to Ecclesiastes’, it doesn’t actually appear in the Bible. In fact, Baudrillard made a paraphrase that endorses Ecclesiastes’ condemnation of the pursuit of wisdom as something as useless as “chasing after wind” (Ecclesiastes 1.16).

This opens a new and wider field to be considered. Let’s look at the pursuit of wisdom as the search for what is real, and what composes reality. This could be considered folly too, since there is no single reality, but rather infinite ones as each of us experience a new kind of reality every single day. For instance, our own language defines much of the way we perceive things, as Wittgenstein posited once. Take the Eskimo example. It is said that they have more than 50 words for snow, as stated by the anthropologist Franz Boa.

In the 1880s, he went to Baffin Island in Northern Canada to study the Inuit people. What really intrigued him was their language. He noticed that the Inuit used elaborate terms when they described the frozen landscape: “aqilokoq” for “softly falling snow” and “piegnartoq” for “snow good for driving sled” are just two examples that the English language does not have specific words for.

According to Boa’s observations, found in the introduction of the book Handbook of American Indian Languages (1911), there are not “only” 50 words for snow, but dozens and possibly hundreds more. Though many people thought it was a hoax, a later study done by the anthropologist Igor Krupnik concluded that Inuit and Yupik dialects do have more words for snow than English does. While Central Siberian Yupik has around 40 terms, the Inuit dialect spoken in the Canadian region of Nunavik has something like 53 words for snow.

That being said, we can understand that language provides the apprehension of reality as much as it can limit it. Maybe a English speaker doesn’t experience snow the same way an Eskimo does, for instance. This could be said because it is precisely the Eskimo experience that molds their language. Wittgenstein believed that language was able to embrace all that is real, that “what we can’t say we can’t say, and we can’t whistle it either”. What he meant to say is there is something, some knowledge, that is unreachable, unnamable and maybe even incomprehensible, therefore it can’t be said or even whistled.

To look at it from another perspective, some people believe this ethereal word could be what constitutes God or the name of God. In the Old Testament, you can find sixteen names and terms that refer to God, such as Yahweh, Elohim and Adonai. Some say all these names try to describe the many faces and qualities of God, but on the other hand, there is even the negative theology, where God is so unreachable that one can only talk about him through negation. It uses only terms that show how impossible it is to express the perfect goodness that is God. This means that God’s existence, or the definition of God cannot be given. There is no single term for it, but many words that try to grasp its qualities, though they never really do.

In The Zero Theorem, Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz) is constantly waiting for a call that became the meaning of his life.
In The Zero Theorem, Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz) is constantly waiting for a call that became the meaning of his life. He works for an oppressive institution that wants him to solve a mysterious mathematical formula named Zero Theorem.

So what does this say about reality and existence? Last year, a Brazilian theorist wrote the book A ficção de Deus (God’s Fiction). Through the title of his work, Gustavo Bernardo proposes the following interpretations: God is a human invention; God is a fictional character; we are God’s fiction/invention. He further asserts: “Even if God exists, all of us, believers and non-believers, know him only as the fiction we can make of him. Even if God doesn’t exist at a certain level, he still undoubtedly exists, at least, as a powerful fiction – for some people, it is the most beautiful fiction of humanity”.

The French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan affirmed that “God is unconscious”, which is something we could take as, “God is everything we don’t know and cannot be known, though we want to. We could almost say: God is the grandiloquent non-name of the Unconscious” (Bernardo, 2014). This takes us again to Wittgenstein and the “words we cannot say” because they are unreachable. We all try to reach “God”, but that doesn’t mean we are after a particular patriarchal monotheistic god or any specific deity, but it is more like the search for an ultimate knowledge and reality that is far from our capacity to reach. In fact, for many people, the Catholic God is the reality. In this sense, Freud said in his Civilization and Its Discontents, that we aren’t able to tell what the point of human existence is in a satisfactory way – and if we did, maybe life would lose its value entirely. Only religion can give such an answer with any such certainty.

In cyberpunk narratives, it’s common place to portray the existence of big dehumanized institutions and megacorps, as we saw in 1984, The Sprawl trilogy and also in Terry Gilliam’s works like Brazil, 12 Monkeys and the latest The Zero Theorem. If you know Franz Kafka’s fiction, specifically The Process, you see that such ideas were already present before cyberpunk and modern corporations. Still Kafka was talking, in a way, about bureaucracy, the most important thing in his work is probably the assumption of how chaotic these institutions are. It is basically this chaos and absurdity that are in the basis of some theories posited by another Czech, Vilém Flusser, who was re-discovered by media and image studies recently.  One of his concepts is known as the “apparatus”.

Although many people could make a connection with Foucault’s dispositive (also known as device, machinery or apparatus), Flusser went beyond the French sociologist’s concept of it. Foucault understood dispositive as a reference to institutions, being these physical or administrative mechanisms, and knowledge structures that enhance and maintain the exercise of power within society. Flusser speaks to this, but also in reference to machines. He uses the camera as an example of apparatus and the photographer as the man who thinks he is using the device, but in fact he has been used by it – we can only take photographs according to the machine’s characteristics, therefore we are limited by it.

Actually, many of us do not even try to go beyond the standard functionalities of our machines. The fact that many rarely check the instructions for their various devices points to this. Those who do the opposite may be, perhaps, called geeks, but I think the term hacker fits best. Flusser used the term artist for those who can “play” with the machine and free himself from its limitations, but researchers like Thiago Reis have seen precisely the hacker figure as one of the possibilities of Flusser’s concept of the artist. In his paper É possível hackear a existência? (Is it possible to hack existence?), Reis discusses hacking as a possibility to modify our existence. In other words, as the hacker hacks programs (software) and devices (hardware), he puts himself in a different condition from those who don’t “play” with the apparatus – the “functionaries”. The hacker is supposedly someone who does not submit to the apparatus, nor are they programmed by it.

The Hacker As A Revolutionary Type

Neo from The Matrix is one of the most popular example of the hacker who breaks with the apparatus that programs him. Actually, Morpheus and Trinity accomplished this previously, but they were unable to fight against the machines directly, like Neo was. In fact, Neo is the Wachowski brothers’ interpretation of Gibson’s Case and this archetype has also been repeated in many other cyberpunk narratives. Therefore we may say that the hacker figure can be seen as the artist that is freed from “the program”, from a  “fake reality” enforced by some apparatus. In The Matrix, the apparatus is the robots/machines, while in Neuromancer, it is the corporations, in 1984 it is the government and media, in Brave New World it is both of them and the drug Soma.

With that being said, we can finally agree that apparatus are not only machines, but also institutions, ideologies, companies, moralities, religion and we are all programmed/influenced by some or all of them, in a way. We are all functionaries or we are all living in a simulation that isn’t fed by a computer alone, but by all these things. In addition, Flusser says that even if you try to see what is inside an apparatus, you may be trapped in something like the inner side of an onion: there are many layers and no nucleus. It is all illogical, chaotic and absurd.

So, according to Flusser, in order to understand and maybe even surpass these programs and apparatus, we need to quit thinking in a finalistic way. In Pós-História (Post History), he states that thinking in consequences (something happens due to another thing, everything has a reason etc) won’t save us from being programmed. If we keep thinking like that, if we keep searching for the reasons behind the programs that rule us, we will fatally become victims of the absurdity that is the program: they even foresee our attempts to debunk as one of our virtualities. That would mean ideas such as “free will”, are a lie.

But this is the great pursuit of humanity and of the cyberpunk archetypes too. While in many fictions we see machines as the ones who are controlling us (System Shock, Portal, The Matrix, Neuromancer etc), in fact, according to Flusser, everything (the apparatus and its programs) is keeping us away from the ultimate truth. But does that exist at all? Like finding out why do we exist, if we reached this final truth, that thing which is beyond language and apprehension (from the Latin apprehendere, to grasp, to capture), maybe we would again lose all the value in life. Or we would be unhappy with the truth and want more.

Virtual As Opposed To Real

On the other hand, in many cyberpunk stories what is taken as the unreal (or the opposite of real) is the virtual. The French philosopher Pierre Lévy is one of the best known theorists who study this subject. In 1995, he published the book Qu’est-ce que le virtuel? (translated as Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age), where he develops Gilles Deleuze’s conception of the virtual as a dimension of reality that subsists with the actual, but it is irreducible to it.

Avalon, by Mamoru Oshii
Avalon, by Mamoru Oshii

In English, the virtual word has many meanings: 1. Something that may not strictly exist, but exists in effect; 2. Something that is so close to the actual for most purposes, that it can be considered as such; 3. Something that exists in essence or effect, though it isn’t formally recognized and admitted as such; 4. Something which existence can only be inferred by an indirect evidence.

But Lévy goes even further, denying the opposition that can be conceived between the real and the virtual. Considering its Latin origin Virtus (virtue, vigor, potency), the author understands that what is virtual is something that potentially exists: “problematic complex, a nod of tendencies or forces that follows a situation, a happening, an object or any entity, and that calls for a resolution process, an actualization”. Therefore, the virtual is opposed to what is current; the actualization of something would be the realization of this nod of tendencies which constitute virtuality. The real would be that which is possible, that which is “all constituted, but is kept in limbo. The possible will be accomplished without any modifications in its determination or nature. It is a phantasmagoric real, latent. The  possible is exactly like the real, it only misses the existence”.

Taking that idea as it applies to the Web, the virtual world and virtual reality: what does it mean? Could it be that what we observe and experience in cyberspace is something that potentially exists? What we experience in the virtual world is something that has the same attributes, but doesn’t share the physical form, whether it is real or imagined. Remember Baudrillard? What we experience in the virtual world is a simulation: the act of imitating something seen or based in a real-world process.

In this sense, we can observe such a discussion in Mamoru Oshii’s movie Avalon, where the protagonist Ash tries to reach the maximum level of the game Avalon. I won’t make major incursions here, because I want to write a proper and single text for Avalon, but if you watched it, you may remember that the movie’s aesthetic is in sepia tone. When Ash is either offline or playing the game, which is in virtual reality, she experiences the world in sepia. It’s only when she reaches Class SA as an Elite player, she enters into a world that looks just like ours: colored, with people walking on the streets, dressing in trivial clothes. Many people tend to understand that she finally got away from the simulation, though what we should keep in mind that Class SA is based on our conception of reality and not Avalon’s, where everything is in sepia tone with a dieselpunk aesthetic. In the end, all of us finish the movie without really knowing what was real and what wasn’t – and that is one of the biggest insights found in the movie.

Therefore, what could we get from this article? Maybe that there isn’t one and only one reality. We, as the hackers, can strive to break with the apparatus programming, though even that could be foreseen by “them”. This doesn’t mean we need to accept our fate as functionaries, but try to be the best hackers or players (Flusser uses the expression “play with the apparatus” as a way to free ourselves from them), like Ash, Neo or Case. Consider that cyberpunk is named  so precisely because of its punk, rebel posture against “the system”. A cyberpunk vision could never be satisfied with only “this” that we mostly have as a reality. We are always trying to reach Class SA, or the ultimate truth, which we cannot name, describe or grasp – the highest knowledge. Maybe for now, but some believe if we finally achieve a post-human state, we will, at least, climb a new step. Let’s see what future holds.

Further Reading

Bernardo, Gustavo. A Ficção de Deus. São Paulo: Annablume, 2014

Flusser, Vilém. Pós-história: Vinte Instantâneos E Um Modo De Usar. São Paulo: Annablume, 2011.

Freud, Sigmund. O mal-estar na cultura. Porto Alegre: L&PM, 2011

Reis, Thiago. É Possível Hackear a Existência? 17th ed. Flusser Studies, 2014.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London, 1918

20 Responses to “To Walk A Blade’s Edge: The (Un)real and the Hacker [Part 2]”

    • Thanks, Danilo! One interesting thing is that this Descartes quote was analyzed by Vilém Flusser in his book “A Dúvida” (The Doubt). I was supposed to use it as a reference to the essay, but it would get too long – maybe next time. The thing is that this book discusses both about doubting and what could be real too, and Flusser uses this famous quote as a match point for some of his ideas. If you read in Portuguese, check this book!

  1. Rafael Levi

    Excellent! (sorry for my poor english)

    It’s interesting that, in some way, the “occult” knowledge tries to understand this questions about reallity, the truth and the codes in a subjective way. Something like trying to find God through God itself.
    In kabalah they would say that this concept of the ultimate knowledge is represented by kether, the top of the tree of life. And the art of hacking, thinking outside the box(or beyond the apparatus), is the archetype of the artist, the magician; the one who understand the apparatus and the codes enough to create something beyond its limits, a new apparatus that could change the programming.
    What I am saying is that Cyberpunk fills the archetypes that translate the reality into a fiction or a myth very well.

    What I think it’s cool about the discussion about reallity is that it have a lot of traps. In a Taoism point of view any definition of the Tao is a definition of Tao, never the Tao itself. It brings us the problem of perception and understanding. We percieve things in our relation with the things, but we understand with the use of language, or any other kind of codes. So most of our reallity is a virtual knowledge built by perceptions of others.
    My point is, if there is something we can call reallity or truth, it must be made accepting every reallities and truths, reverting the cave myth of Plato, that the shadows(virtual images) in wich we fool ourselves are the notions of perfection or an ultimate truth. These shadows are made by grouping the complexities of de diversity and generating an avearage image, the perfect one, the ideal one.
    Every indiviual truth create it’s on avearage, it’s on medium, it’s on ideal.

    So, virtual isn’t real? I think this question is like the difference between natural and artificial. How can we say that something that is created by reallity isn’t real? Maybe it’s the “superficial” the ultimate truth from a deeper process.

    • I think that depends on the work. Cyberpunk is nihilistic, it’s based on the punk’s idea of “no future”. It’s dystopian, pessimistic, grim. So you might think that they don’t see a bright future ahead, mostly. As I mentioned in my text, that doesn’t mean cyberpunk characters won’t riot or fight against their condition, but I don’t think they truly feel they’ll surpass it. I guess the post-cyberpunk fiction may be more positive, but cyberpunk per se (not considering Hollywood/Blockbuster stuff) doesn’t really look on the bright side and they don’t feel like there’s really an escape. From my experience, I see cyberpunk much more like an attempt to show us the issues of the future (which can be also current issues) and how we may face it, but I guess good cyberpunk fictions won’t be propagating the hero’s journey (monomyth) and enforcing a hope that may be flawed. That’s why in the last paragraph I mentioned that Flusser considers that the apparatus is already aware of the attempts we might make, though in some of his books he believes that maybe it’s possible, by playing with the chances and the randomness of the apparatus. In my case, personally, I’m not so optimistic to agree with that – this is why I considered the post-human condition as a possibility to apprehend things we don’t do now as regular humans, but still…

      Regarding the artificial and natural issue, this is something that may have to do with the concepts of nature and culture.

      • Rafael Levi

        Oh, no. Not the monomyth exactly, in this case I would be talking about narrative. I was talking about the structure behind the metaphors in occult myths, not exactly about a journey of some sort of hero, but the mythical universe, as representation of our own. Maybe this pessimist view of the cyberpunk it’s because the genre talks about the discovery of this stronger(new) structure of things(the system + technology + corporations) that seems unchangeable, what fits a lot in the contemporary philosophy, so the refletion turns to inside questions, like “what makes us humans”, etc. No?

        • In fact, I was talking to a friend who is studying philosophy in a university… today we have few people writing and thinking about existence. Most of the current philosophers are more interested in politics, science or materialism. I guess the only person here in Brazil who has been actively writing about the human condition, considering technology (because it’s something relevant in our time), is a columnist in the magazine Filosofia, Ciência e Vida. I used to buy this publication only because of his essays… João de Fernandes Teixeira writes about philosophy of the mind there. There may be more people writing on blogs and websites, but I’m not aware of them.

  2. Neon Snake

    Really good work, both this and the previous piece by Karl.

    There’s a few different strands in your essays, each of which could probably warrant their own, separate essay – the idea of language as a way of structuring reality is one which could be explored deeply, from a cyberpunk perspective, as things like the Matrix, the internet and cyberspace (to be somewhat obvious in my examples) are completely and exclusively created from man-made language – code – which is then subverted by the hackers. This also has a bearing on magic and the occult, to pull in Rafael’s comment.

    Taoism has a lot to say on this matter, especially regarding the opposite – limitations of description – from the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching
    “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
    The name that can be named is not the eternal name
    The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
    The named is the mother of myriad things”

    It’s a different point to the one about code, but Taoism is a goldmine for punks of all stripes.

    Then, moving on, I really like your segment about the difference between “hackers” and “functionaries”. I’ve mentioned elsewhere in comments that cyberpunk is very much about the DIY approach to tech and a customisation ethos, and you express it very well here in that people do not allow themselves to be limited by the tech, but make it a tool. It sounds trite, but isn’t. And then broadening that concept out, from tech to the “apparatus” of control; working within the systems that exist, but not being limited by them, is one of the very pillars of cyberpunk.

    It’s probably worth noting that punk, especially English punk, was not (wholly) nihilistic. The “no future” cry comes originally from a Sex Pistols song, which was about the world as it *was at the time*, not the one they wanted. Whether they actively did anything/enough about it is up for debate, but they, and other punk bands at the time, most notably The Clash, were not politically nihilistic, they genuinely wanted revolution, and in some ways they succeeded.

    Finally, and I mean this very much as a compliment: your writing and ideas are strong enough on their own that they don’t need to be supported by quoting or referencing lots of different authors in the same essay.

    • Thanks for your comment, Neon Snake. This quote about the Tao made Rafael’s reference clearer to me. I’m not initiated to Taoism, I only have some idea about Hinduism and Buddhism, so these phrases make a lot more sense even comparing to what I’ve written in my text. And, sure, coding is also a language and therefore another means to “design” reality. All the subjects covered here could generate more texts regarding its particularities… I guess this is just an intro (to be honest, I cut half the things I originally wrote to make a shorter and more condensed version here hahah).

      About the nihilism in punk, you’re right. Actually, if you get Heidegger’s appointments about Nietzsche’s nihilism, you will see that the true nihilism isn’t all about void and a deep pessimism as you would find in Schopenhauer or Cioran, for instance. I guess my pessimistic approach to cyberpunk or these issues we’re discussing have much more to do with a personal view combined with these philosophical references I’m mentioning here and in the article. I mean, again, as I wrote in the last paragraphs: I still think we need to fight against these limitations and keep struggling to reach the “nameless” (or the eternal name). However, particularly I guess we’ll never succeed on doing that… not because we’re flawed, dumb or anything like that, but because this is what it is. And even if we could name the nameless, as it seems that the Tao says too, it wouldn’t be the eternal name anyway – isn’t that? It’s a constant struggle and inspiration… and I like it that way! It’s not like you’ve been always trapped in lies, but maybe if you accept things like that, you will understand that there’s not only one way to follow… consequently, you’ll spend your life doing your best to grasp as many as possible ways to see and apprehend the world.

      Finally, thank you so much for your contribution and compliment. I’m glad you read the post and left your ideas here too! It’s always amazing to meet people and to promote such discussions.

  3. [Patch.023]

    Great post! Very strong ideas! (Disagree a litte with Neon Snake, quoting and referencing different authors can be seen as academic vice, but for me it´s a honest and fair way to express ourselves)

    That being said, It was like reading a ciberpunk interpretation of Timothy Leary´s “Turn on, tune in, Drop out”, I mean, those who are not yet awake are “the dead posturing of robot actors on the fake-prop TV studio stage-set that is called American Reality”

    Also, I remembered of the entire works of Philip K. Dick, that gravitates around the idea of nature of reality. Hacking this reality moves the discussion to a whole new level. Thank´s for that!

    • Neon Snake

      It may have just been that I’m not as well-read as others – I “got” what the piece was saying, despite having (at best!) only a passing familiarity with the authors that were referenced. I felt, almost, that it was a shame for Lidia passed them credit for such a well-written piece 🙂

      I agree wholeheartedly with your observations re. Leary and PKD. I have this vague notion in the back of my head, something about how as technology improves, the apparatus of control gets more efficient – and at the same time, it’s both more important, and more easy, to hack, to work-around. Life’s different now than when Leary and PKD were writing, we’re approaching that cyberpunk future faster and faster, but the themes are still the same – just that the tech has caught up.

      But the tech is more widespread; it’s in the hands of everybody, not just the government or Big Corp or the military.

      I live in London, the most-surveilled city in the world, apparently. A few years ago, during a protest, a policeman hit a guy who had a heart condition (and was a bystander, nothing to do with the protests) in the legs with a baton, and pushed him to ground. He was helped to his feet, managed to walk away, and then collapsed and died.

      There was (of course!) apparently no CCTV footage of any of this – despite there being 6 cameras covering the area.

      However, there emerged at least 4 videos taken by the public, using handheld cameras, showing events, which later resulted in the truth coming out, and the policeman being prosecuted for unlawful use of force.

      This event is burned in my memory, as it shows that whilst “they” may think they are watching us – we’re watching them as well. And we have the tech to make it count.

      • Neon Snake, I guess it’s no problem at all that you didn’t read the authors I mention here – also because some of them have works only written in Portuguese. In fact, when I point them is to guide someone that would like to go deeper into some subject. Personally, I hate when I read something but I can’t find the references or further information about something hahaha! By the way, Flusser was very criticized because his essays were always written without any references. People could see that some of his ideas were influenced by different philosophers, but they needed to be “initiated” in that kind of reading. But I’m very glad that you like the piece!

        Regarding the media discourse, I think that was mentioned by Karl in his text. But yeah, it feels like 1984 sometimes. However, with internet and what they call ninja media or guerrilla media, I guess we are closer to be aware of such things that are not in the news. Maybe since what happened in Egypt, people are more concerned about the usage of social media and blogs for such things. I see here in Brazil too, they used Twitter a lot during some protests. Facebook seems to be not very useful in these occasions because it’s more controlled than Twitter. But still… I feel that this is changing progressively. I remember when I interviewed Gottfried Helnwein and he said exactly the same thing I’m saying here. He’s very concerned about the media discourse and how it can mold reality – his imagery is partly about that too.

    • Thanks for the comment, Patch.023! Yeah, using several references is something that I got as an academic habit… but I think even in journalism that would be something to be considered, mostly when you write large pieces. At least I learned that in college 😛
      Anyway, I don’t know this specific work of Timothy Leary, but I do know him. I met his ideas when I was studying Serial Experiments Lain for an undergraduate research and I found in his work with Anton Wilson something that may have to do with what you’re talking about – also because, by mentioning Dick’s work, we’re talking about drug experiments too. Have you seen anything about the 8-circuit of consciousness? I guess this is even mentioned in the anime, if memory serves. It’s very nice because through meditation and different drugs, these guys understood that we can reach different circles/circuits of consciousness – in some occasions we would even meet alien criatures and stuff. That’s very visible and plausible in Lain’s universe, but I don’t know if it would make sense to “real life” hahaha. I may write here something about Lain some day!

    • Oi, Gustavo! Agradeço pelo comentário. Gostei muito do seu livro! Sempre que possível, uso como referência nos meus textos. Já conheço também o site Flusser Brasil. Realmente é uma ótima fonte, já li várias coisas lá e também recomendo para todos. Parabéns pela iniciativa e obrigada pelo seu trabalho!

Leave a Reply