Post No. 3,041 - The problem of expecting sameness

There has been - quite validly, in my opinion - considerable concern, commentary, and resistance about an amathiac and likely impermissible direction to some US government employees to provide five dot points about what they have “accomplished”. 

A couple of decades ago some amathiac in the administration hierarchy of a place I worked tried the same fatuousness, and was fairly quickly shut down - although not before causing considerable stress, harm, and disruption (i.e., they cost the company money). 

If someone is hired to do technical skill X, all that can be said with reasonable certainty is that they have technical skill X. They may not have the marketing skills required to identify and present five dot points of “accomplishments” - and that is what that exercise is: a fatuous, amathiac exercise in self-marketing to someone who clearly does not understand any of the technical skills in that organisation. 

In the 1980s my profession (the engineering - specifically, water and wastewater - profession in Australia) had realised that the old career path of people being promoted out of technical positions and in to management was ludicrous - it left people without management skills floundering, to the disbenefit of others, the company, and the profession & industry, and also robbed the technical work of expertise and skill. 

TWO career paths were implemented - one technical, and one management based. (A friend and I both declined the routine “promotions” that we were offered at the same time, and that was the spur in that company for the change, but I am sure others elsewhere also triggered the same sort of change, as it has become fairly standard now.) 

However, the paid work arena is still plagued by some people who expect others to have the same sort of skills that they have and find easy - or the same sort of focus. 

The area that was of most concern to me was the focus on making a profit. I was hired for for my technical skills, and while I knew we had to make a profit to survive and thus be able to do the work I enjoyed, it was NOT central in my attention, and the complex requirements that were introduced to some places required accounting skills/interest in order to be used - and thus were clearly, obviously inherently absurd. 

It was INCOMPETENT management. 

But the admin people amathiacally thought that because THEY found it easy and/or interesting it would be the same for others. 

They EXPECTED sameness ...

And that expectation of sameness is a significant factor behind the commencement of each new form of bigotry - racism, misogyny, etc all started somewhere, and that expectation of sameness, which can also be re-written as discomfort with difference, was a key part of it. 

Once started, other factors were quickly mobilised by the haters of difference - which is what they became. 

And that expectation of sameness / discomfort with difference / hatred of difference  is: 

• morally WRONG - not just questionable or undesirable, just wrong; 

• counter, in my opinion, to the reason this physical reality was manifested into existence, which is (from the link I just provided):   “the physical came into being - from a spiritual perspective - to ensure that we have a chance to come into contact with those parts of the Universe’s variety that we may not otherwise even know existed - and, ideally, learn to get along constructively with those who are different. That gives the Universe a chance to mix and draw on the best of all combinations of skills - the Universe itself seeks diversity, as that has evolutionary advantages. ... Life will go on, and will continue to grow and evolve because all the skills and perspectives that are available can be combined in the best possible way by people meeting those who are dissimilar, and learning to get along and then work together”;
  

• harmful - to all those involved, and to organisations and societies and, ultimately, life. 
  

That means the same character flaw that results in anyone anywhere trying to force technical people to use marketing skills they don’t have is also the same character flaw that results in all forms of discrimination and bigotry, and many forms of hate. 

It is contrary to the purpose of Life itself, and must be opposed and overcome. 

Things like human rights activism and DEI are necessary to overcome anti-life problems such as the expectation of sameness and all that comes from it. If people, organisations, and society (especially the systems of society) were free of the flaw of expectation of sameness, and thus genuinely, for example, hired equitably, on the basis of genuine talent and not similarity as many people and moguls who complain about DEI are really acting on, DEI would not be necessary. 

Every person who demands an explanation of difference or why they should not discriminate (or denies discriminating when they do - perhaps because of unmanaged unconscious bias) is spiritually puerile and doing active anti-life harm. 

 

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 consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also other options. 

Note that I am cutting back on aspects of my posts - see here. 

(Gnwmythr is pronounced new-MYTH-ear)  

Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, 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  

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/  

 

Post No. 2,324 - Corporations are things, not people [Content Warning: discrimination, inequity, harm]

One of the aspects of elections that I object to is that the rich and powerful have a financial impact that is out of all proportion to their number - smaller and more progressive parties struggle for money for advertising, people, and so forth. 

In some cases, given the nature of some of those smaller, more hateful parties, I consider that a good thing, but, as a general principle, I favour public funding of elections so it is a less uneven contest of ideas. 

Here in the continent known as Australia we already have some laws around funding and advertising in the context of elections, but I consider there is room for improvement. 

Apart from the undue influence of the elites, I also consider that we, as a society need to think about the nature of corporations, which - in my deliberately provocative choice of words - have a legal fiction of personhood, much as this nation was subjected to the legal  fiction or pretence of terra nullius (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) for so long (and still is, in the sense of the ongoing effects of white supremacism and colonialism - e.g., see here). 

Now, in some circumstances, that concept enables protection that benefits the community - for instance, by protecting small community clubs, groups, and organisations which promote cophgesion, give people interests that benefit their wellbeing, and so forth. 

But in some larger cases, the benefits are subject, in my opinion (IMO), to challenge - for instance, when corporations become so powerful that they can influence political decision making. 

It is that specific aspect that I am concerned about, and would like to see curtailed. 

Voting is for humans - for, in legal parlance, natural persons, and laws are mostly written that way. There are exceptions, e.g., business (i.e., commercial corporations) get votes on some business focused councils, such as, I understand, the CBD of Naarm (also known as Melbourne), but votes for Parliament are limited to human beings. 

That is clearcut, but it is the indirect influence that I am concerned about. We have now had, for a couple of decades off the top of my head, laws governing the activities of paid lobbyists, which is one form of influence. 

We have some laws about transparency and donations, but these are far too slow - the information is revealed AFTER elections, which makes it useless, rather than in real time.

If we do not move to publicly funded elections (and we won’t for many years, IMO, as too many parties benefit from the current system and will object using the pretence that public funded elections are more expensive [they’re not, when one considers the vast amounts provided privately and by corporations]), then, as an interim measure, I would like to see corporations banned from political donations or in-kind assistance. 

This is not a simple, clear cut thing: media reporting on politics are corporations, and make their money by reporting - and, in fact, there has been major concern here over the undue influence of the conservative media (less so after the recent election result in my home state showed media commentary was very out of touch).

In addition, the reality is that corporations are comprised of people, and have the potential to be beneficial - as they used to be before the evils of neoliberalism, and as many are seeking to do in various ways (e.g., this, although some corporate social responsibility can be criticised for tokenism).

Nevertheless, in activities that should be human-based or human-focused, such as electoral voting, I consider we should be viewing corporations as things, rather than persons. 

Why am I posting this here, rather than on my political blog? 

Because there are other situations where personhood for other than homo sapiens sapiens needs to be considered, including: 

• animals (or sentient animals, perhaps), which is an important ethical basis for animal rights and veganism; 
• the life of plants, which experiments have shown respond to people - and the work of Peter  Wohlleben and Suzanne  Simard shows the intelligent activity of trees;
  
• inanimate objects such as crystals or rocks, the spirits of which people such as myself and shaman can attest to;
• but also the products of machine learning, which are developing the capacity for a completely and utterly soul-free mimicry of homo sapiens sapiens; and, finally ...
• just as humans evolved into existence (from primates - see here for some early thoughts of mine on this matter), so too there may come a day when we evolve into a different species, and the issues of the rights of the old species (i.e., us) and the new will need to be considered.
  

 This is a complex topic, and one well worth considering carefully as part of one’s spiritual growth evolution. 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.
I am on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/Gnwmythr.

Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.