Photo
by Zetong
Li on Unsplash
(Beams of sunlight stream through a misty redwood forest onto a person standing on a walking track and looking up at and into the beams of light)
A little while ago, I wrote a post (at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2024/07/post-no-2835-major-change-of-opinion.html)
explaining that I had changed my views on Emotional Intelligence (EI)
aka Emotional Quotient (EQ). Specifically, I was concerned that it was (or could be) “potentially ableist & traumatic, and errs towards conservativism (anti-progressive)”.
I had considered this aspect previously, with the following from my post at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2020/05/post-no-1573-evidence-supporting.html: “The
book also covers ... attitudinal problems, and a certain amount of
overlap with emotional intelligence (one of the authors appears to have
popularised the term). They’re clearly aware of the importance of
compassion, so I haven’t yet decided whether or not they’ve fallen into
the trap of not considering that the world needs to be made a better
place at least as much as people need to learn how to cope in it - in
fact, much of the learning/change that this book covers would be more
readily achievable in a better world, which is one point they sort of
make when discussing “things that have been left behind” (my term).”
Two other key aspects of that change are the problems of trauma (see https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2023/08/post-no-2535-trauma-content-warning.html) and bigotry (see https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/09/post-no-2011-bigots-and-their-legacy-of.html).
My
experience is that conservativesomisuse EI / EQ to abuse people and
block changes. This particularly applies to what is termed the Golden
Rule (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Rule&oldid=1319321376, and that site also includes a version of the Silver Rule, which is an exhortation to not do what one would not want done to oneself), something that is also misused by all haters/bigots, wherever they fall on the
political landscape. This has now reached the point where I will not
recommend the Golden Rule without qualification(s) - and I have been
using and advocating for that as a guide since I was a teenager (and
have doubts also about the Silver Rule), so that is a major change - particularly at this late stage of my life.
This all tends to lead to: what do I recommend instead?
Well, for me personally, BPM or "balanced positive, spiritually mature" (see https://shrineofbalancedpositivity.blogspot.com/, http://gnwmythrsglossary.blogspot.com/2014/04/balanced-positive.html, http://gnwmythrsglossary.blogspot.com/2015/12/bpm.html, https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/search/label/Balanced%20Positivity, https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/search/label/BPM)
works perfectly well. But for those who aren't familiar with it, the (double) concept requires considerable explanation, and that defeats the purpose of pithy little sayings.
Of course, that could be a more accurate reflection of the complexities of real life ...
I've started doing some reading of Kant's categorical imperative (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categorical_imperative&oldid=1313149590 and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/),
but I've got a lot of baggage installed by neoliberals around any words
such as "rational", etc - which are their code for
"hate/fear/insecurity", so I have doubts about whether that will give me
a pithy alternative to the Golden/Silver Rules.
The Platinum Rule (see https://effectiviology.com/platinum-rule/ and https://leaderforgood.com/platinum-rule/)
is another alternative which has advantages, but I can also see
problems if people are self destructive - as so many are ... a balanced
positive interpretation of that - and the Golden and Silver Rules -
might be the solution ... (I may have to examine that on my Shrine of Balanced Positivity.)
The search, research, and pondering continue ...
And now, consider this:
“Cults LOVE to Blame Individuals for Things That Are Our of Their Control” https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KBiyZ_wIUCk
This
problem is similar to the problem which has led me to stop (actively) teaching karma - which is that I have found the overwhelming majority of westerners,
after discovering the what-goes-around-comes-around nature of karma,
instantly focus on other peoples' karma (especially other people they dislike) - which is spiritual bypassing, rather than
using this as a tool to find and fix one's errors of deed and flaws of character, something that requires: (a) identifying and learning from the mistake/flaw that resulted in you harming others, and doing that learning and correction so well that you will not make that error again (because it is ingrained into your unconscious so well that the lesson will carry through from life to life ... and you can, I hope, see I am going a little overboard on this ... but just a little ... ), (b) healing and/or providing reparations (probably nonphysical, if the wrong was committed in another life or your victim has moved or wants nothing to do with you [which is their right, a right that must be respected) to completely reverse and undo the harm you
did, and (c) combining all that with activism - particularly in the
physical world - to make the world a better place by addressing
systemic/societal that enabled/exacerbated what went wrong.
I
think the western world is a few centuries off the majority of people being able to have a
properly constructive/reflective/responsible/non-focused-on-others
attitude on that.
The principle is real and valid, but the problems make it unteachable without first evaluating the character of the student - and finding it suitable.
On
that, I also have other personal baggage - such as having had to break out of
middle class privilege social conditioning. Learning about other
peoples' lives - sing books, podcasts, films, etc to avoid having to meet any personally [to save them having to deal with your problems, and avoid a weaselling out of acting excuse that is too common) - and being
constructively challenged (and a lot of the challenging was vindictive, malicious, and resentful, and thus not only useless but caused setbacks) ultimately helped.
And now, courts ... I have always been a little dubious about the enthusiasm of Geoffrey Robertson and others (especially constitution writers) for courts as a balance to political and economic power (the
comments of a judge about a cross dresser in the 90s reflected nothing
but bigotry, and the US court system has been ideologically driven
against decency and inclusion for centuries, IMO), but the events of this
year in the USA have caused a further, massive loss of faith - on a global basis (also remembering show trials - particularly of the 20s and 30s in the USSR, but many other places and times), courts seem to be
too dependent on the character of judge for judicial systems to be considered
reliably decent.
I
am of the view that Australian courts - and many others - are
infinitely better than the US system, but there are still problems.
Globally,
having courts that strive for genuine independence and evening of power
imbalances is better than not, and there are some very good
international guidelines on court systems (e.g., the "IBA - Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence 1982"), but the fact that theoUSosystemois
so out of balance shows that there are problems on a global basis which
need to be fixed.
Something
closely related to that, particularly this close to the 50 year
anniversary of The Dismissal (see https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/whitlam-dismissal, https://moadoph.gov.au/explore/democracy/weve-been-sacked-the-1975-whitlam-government-dismissal, this on Crikey News on YouTube, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis&oldid=1318762961), is that Parliamentary conventions are not, IMO, worth the paper they're written on - as alsooshownobyotheoUSA, for many years.
(I am now also understanding vital importance of enabling laws regarding international conventions and treaties.)
Should I have further significant changes of opinion, I will endeavour to post about them. Hopefully this will help others change when it is justified.
PS - this historian is very good!
- “The John Brown Problem: Why Do Historians Fear Taking Sides?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRSn3_7uy08 “Calling it objectivity doesn't make it neutral. It makes it unexamined”
- AI summary: “Historian Tad Stoermer challenges the notion of "objective distance" in historical analysis, particularly regarding violence and resistance. Using John Brown and the Civil War as examples, the video explores how claiming moral neutrality distorts historical understanding. Stoermer argues that centering the perspectives of those who challenged power creates more rigorous history.”
Possible flaws
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan
Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If you appreciated this post, please share it. I am now on SubStack, Patreon,
and you can support me at PayPal (or PayPal Repeating Support Options) or Ko-Fi
Any and all support will be greatly appreciated, and will aid me in continuing this work
Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our MÓ•gan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk
& accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor
comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither). #PsychicABetterWorld and may all that I do be of value and actively BPM used for and by the nonphysical BPM because #KindnessIsThePoint
Note that I am cutting back on aspects of my posts - see here, and Gnwmythr is pronounced new-MYTH-ear
Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2025 NO AI
I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence
(AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or
other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to
reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise replicate any part of
this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s
may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.
Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative
Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
.jpg)
