Trimming the m43 fat from my collection and expectations

Some of what you are getting rid of is definitely fat.  Some of it is eliminating a certain type of photography.  That's fine if that's what you want, but I'd be clear about the distinction.

This is the fat:

Camera: Settle on Olympus, get rid of the Panasonic.

Primes: The 25 f/1.4 loses to the 25 f/1.2, the 17 f/1.8 loses to the 15 f/1.7, the 45 f/1.8 loses to the 42. f/1.2

Travel: You don't need 4 10x zooms, especially the Panasonic

General: The 12-35 is redundant with the 12-40, the 12-32 is not good with Olympus because it doesn't have a focus ring

Macro: The 30 f/2.8 doesn't have enough working distance

Wildlife: The 100-300 is Panasonic and not as good as other lenses (and in particular it doesn't have good burst rate, the 75-300 is just not as good as the 100-400

What's left is the the following: 42.5 f/1.2, 75 f/1.8, 60 f/2.8, 100-400, 40-150 f/2.8 + TC

So here are my comments:

1. Primes: I shoot existing light concerts, theater, dance with the fast primes.  I don't have the 25 f/1.2, but I use the 25 f/1.4, 42.5 f/1.2 and 75 f/1.8 extensively.  I use multiple bodies so I don't have to change lenses.  I also shoot a lot of portraits, and use the 42.5 and 75 to get shallow DOF.  If you don't have this kind of use, then I see eliminating them.  Not fat, just not needed.  I also use the 12mm f/2 for astrophotography when I travel.  That's one lens I really should use more, however.

2. Travel: I use the smaller f/1.8 primes for travel (17mm, 25mm, 45mm) because they are so light.  I do shoot some concerts when I travel, and do some portrait work as well.  These are good for low light and small enough to bring even if I just use them for one shoot.

3. Macro: The 60mm f/2.8 is an excellent macro lens, it will go to 1:1, and provide minimal working distance.  But I also use a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 with TC or extension tubes, and that gives even more working distance.  If you don't shoot macro, and just want to shoot closeup, then a closeup lens adapter (I have a preference for the Canon 500D) is just fine.  And you can get pretty close with some of  your  lenses without any adapter if you just want to shoot flowers.

4. Wildlife: This is where I think you have a gap.  While the 14-150 ii is a good lens, it really doesn't compare to the 40-150 + TC with shallow DOF and subject separation.  As well for me, I use the 40-150 along with the 12-40 on two bodies when I shoot events.  But even if you don't shoot events, I would keep the 40-150 because it covers that range better than anything else.  The 100-400 is a nice looking lens (I don't have it either), but the 40-150 + TC will get you up to where the 300 kicks in, so it may not be critical.

I also use the 7-14 f/2.8 for events, and the 9-18 for travel.  Both are good for landscape, but when I take the time I usually shoot panoramas with the 12-40, and usually on a tripod with a panoramic head.

I use the 40-150 plus 1.4 TC and 300 f/2.8 plus 1.4 and 2.0 TC for wildlife.  Eventually, I will get the 300 f/4 but the 300 f/2.8 is a lens unto itself.

And I use the 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8 in the studio for portraits (same 58mm filter size makes this a nice pair).

I do have some duplication, but will be keeping many lenses for backup purposes.  I currently shoot with 2 E-M1s, with an E-M5 for backup.  And I have an E-PL6 which I plan to convert to infrared to replace my Pansonic TZ5 (mostly so I can shoot RAW).

Your post has spurred me to get rid of a number of lenses, however.  Off to eBay we go.