「企業をひとりの人格として精神分析を行なうと、診断結果はサイコパス(人格障害) となる」
"He had a sort of epiphany in Law school about the uncanny way that the corporation as an institution meets the characteristics of a psychopath. It met all the criteria that he learned about when he was in psych101 about how a flesh and blood psychopath is diagnosed”. And so, the film is loosely structured around a diagnosis check list, with criteria ranging from “callous unconcern for others” to “failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours”.
In former times, it was thought that bread is baked in order to be eaten; nowadays we think that it is eaten in order to be baked. When we spend money, we are expected to do so not with a view to our enjoyment of what we purchase but to enrich those who have manufactured it. ...昔は,人間に食べられるために,パンは焼かれると皆思っていたが,現在ではパンが焼かれるために(=焼くこと自体が一次的な目的),われわれはパンを食べる(=二次的な結果)と考えられている。現在われわれがお金を使う場合,われわれは,ものを購入して自ら楽しむよりも,その生産者を豊かにするために金を使うと期待されている。 ...... the notion that a man's working hours are the only important part of his life and that what he does with the rest of his time is unimportant unless it affects other men's working hours. ... ... この現象は,「人間の労働時間がその人間の唯一の重要な部分であり人間が余暇にする行為はそれが他人の労働時間とかかわりを持たぬかぎり意味がないという考え方」とも結びついている。 ... We make money not in order to enjoy what it provides but in order that in spending it we may enable others to make money which they will spend in enabling yet others to make money which. . . . But the end of this is bedlam. ... れわれは,買うものを享受するために金をかせぐのではなく,金を使って他人に金を儲けさせ,その金を得た人が金を使ってまた別の他人を儲けさせるために,われわれは金をかせいでいる。そして別の他人はさらに・・・。だが,このように次々と考えて行くと,われわれの頭はおかしくなる。
... the old may be induced to surrender their power. Once robbed of their power, they might become objects of benevolence. I would have them transported to islands in the South Seas, where there should be no prohibition and a plentiful supply of cigars and where special newspapers should be published under a strict censorship with orders to represent that the world is going to the dogs and that in no respect is any improvement occurring anywhere. By this means happiness could be brought to the declining years of these victims of medical skill without their being in a position to oppress the young or to prevent the world from adjusting itself to new conditions.... 権力を一旦取り上げられれば,彼らは博愛の対象となってもよいだろう。私ならば,彼らを南海の島に運んでしまうだろう。そこでは,何も禁止されず,たばこは十分供給され,世界は破滅に向かいつつあり,いかなる点においてもまったく改善がなされていないことを記述せよとの命令とともに,厳しい検閲制度のもとで特別な新聞が発行されるべきである。このような手段によって,これらの(発達した)医療技術の犠牲者のたそがれの年月も幸せなものとなり,老人たちが若者を抑圧したり,世界の新しい状況へ対応を妨げることもなくなるだろう。
bureaucratic language serves as a buffer against the reality of the crimes being committed. [1]
It is worth noting that the language peculiar to totalitarian doctrines is always: a scholastic or administrative language. --- Albert Camus in The Rebel
... as someone whose humanity is intact. It should be the reaction of any questioning person who believes in the dignity of human beings, and who demands that authority—all authority—has an obligation to justify itself. In this world, as Chomsky and others have long reminded us, we will find much of that authority wanting, and illegitimate.
All in all, modern power politics is now just a school for lies. ISIS tells lies with its backward religious verbiage about “pagans gathered for a concert of prostitution and vice” in France and other idiotic nonsense. How Allah “blessed our brothers” granting their desires when they “detonated their explosive belts in the masses of the disbelievers after finishing all their ammunition.” Indeed, ISIS’s “anti-imperialism” is about as authentic as Nazi Germany’s “national socialism,” neither socialist nor anti-imperialist.Meanwhile, the U.S. government tells lies to cover up deaths by drone, of those unidentified or unintended victims who magically become “enemies” in the bureaucratic score sheets of recorded casualties. But whether innocent civilians are killed intentionally or with a shrug of bureaucratic indifference in the end does not matter.
The historical root of swearing in English and many other languages is, oddly enough, religion. We see this in the Third Commandment, in the popularity of hell, damn, God, and Jesus Christ as expletives, and in many of the terms for taboo language itself: profanity (that which is not sacred), blasphemy (literally “evil speech” but, in practice, disrespect toward a deity), and swearing, cursing, and oaths, which originally were secured by the invocation of a deity or one of his symbols.In English-speaking countries today, religious swearing barely raises an eyebrow. Gone with the wind are the days when people could be titillated by a character in a movie saying “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” If a character today is offended by such language, it’s only to depict him as an old-fashioned prude. The defanging of religious taboo words is an obvious consequence of the secularization of Western culture. As G. K. Chesterton remarked, “Blasphemy itself could not survive religion; if anyone doubts that, let him try to blaspheme Odin.” To understand religious vulgarity, then, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of our linguistic ancestors, to whom God and Hell werev a real presence.
As secularization has rendered religious swear words less powerful, creative speakers have replaced them with words that have the same degree of affective clout according to the sensibilities of the day. This explains why taboo expressions can have such baffling syntax and semantics. To take just one example, why do people use the ungrammatical Fuck you? And why does no one have a clear sense of what, exactly, Fuck you means? (Some people guess “fuck yourself,” others “get fucked,” and still others “I will fuck you,” but none of these hunches is compelling.) The most likely explanation is that these grammatically baffling curses originated in more intelligible religious curses during the transition from religious to sexual and scatological swearing in English-speaking countries:
Of course, this transmutation raises the question of why words for these particular concepts stepped into the breach—why, for example, words for bodily effluvia and their orifices and acts of excretion became taboo. Shit, piss, and asshole, to name but a few, are still unspeakable on network television and unprintable in most newspapers. The New York Times, for example, identified a best-seller by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt as On Bull****.
...