Idealized Trust

Idealized Trust is a state of conditioning where we externalize the need for trust by relying on the humanity of others in projects that are designed to change the world. With Idealized Trust we expect others to live up to our expectations so that we feel a sense of connection and trust with them. This blinds us to the fact that others are not usually engaging us the way we wish they would. This creates a situation where we do not feel in balance between our giving and receiving. Many social activists who operate in Idealized Trust focus their attention on making others believe their personal view about how one should operate, at the cost of individual Self Knowing. Ironically, the more we force our perspective on others, the more they resist the opportunities, even if great. The problem is that we are not honoring the free will of others to choose whether or not to engage our process. Individuals placed at the effect of these Idealists naturally seek their own expression. It is also paradoxical that when we operate in Idealized Trust, we are not willing to see or accept any other possibility except what we see as the ideal. This means we are not connecting with others and cannot see if they are trustworthy. The result is disappointment in how people act, not realizing that this pain reflects our own lack of awareness.

The more we actively seek to encourage the true potential of others, and are able to reflect their truth and support them in deepening their experience, the more empowering it will be for them to express their truth. This is the opposite experience of when we are in Idealized Trust, where we attempt to get others to agree with us about how they should fix our problem. Idealized Trust is where we project our problems on others, and then attempt to get them to fulfill the unspoken demands we place upon them. When things are not reflected back to us it is common to lose trust in others’ ability to perform. What we need to do is to realize first that they are really working on solving their own problem within themselves and have no obligation to solve ours. Second, we need to trust them and honor their process, despite what we might believe is the right way of accomplishing something, because they are the only expert in their circumstances. Third, when they are able to articulate how their problem is part of what is currently our mutual problem, it opens up opportunities for mutual growth. Even when we own our problems up front, attempting to get others to deal with the issues that we believe they do not own will only continue to entangle us.

The motive of Idealized Trust is based on the fear that we will to make a difference in the world. By convincing others that they can make a difference, we extend our reach and influence. When others are initially convinced to take on projects that we would have otherwise had to do, we are elated. Frequently, because we convinced others to do these things, they do not have the authentic motivation to accomplish them. Our response is to make resources available to help them make it happen. When they don’t accomplish what they said they would, we feel used and abused. It is easy to blame them, when in fact we are angry at ourselves for not doing what we knew we needed to do from the beginning. Idealized Trust typically results in an imbalance between our giving and receiving, where we typically believe others are not acknowledging our authentic intentions. Our reaction usually is to attack those who are not living up to our ideals. Frequently, the release of these intense feelings does not live up to our idealized self-image about who we are as a person.

We also can get caught up in Idealized Trust when we have built a relationship on certain perceptions and one person unilaterally changes these agreements. In this situation we feel completely justified in the unfairness of this person’s unilateral behavior. It reflects how we came to be attached to their behavior believing that it provided a sense of safety in the relationship. Usually this behavior is supported by some kind of exchange that goes desperately awry. This can be seen when we project our ideas about how others should respond to us on them and expect them to respond as we would. We get caught up in expectations about how others should act in safe or congruent ways as a way to distract our self from how we are not contributing. This is reflected in our roller-coaster experiences between the highs of feeling supported in our vision and the lows of feeling trashed and betrayed in our mission or our process. When we are successful at convincing others that they should take on the problems that we see, it offsets the anxiety in us that things will not move forward.

Idealized Trust is amplified by our belief that love should be infinite. Many times we have unrealistic beliefs that we can overcome any obstacle to trust, when in fact certain actions, thoughts and speech will definitely exceed our comfort zone. While our intention is to always do what is best and we believe that we should be able to trust others, the more we idealize trust the less we are effective in expressing trust appropriately. Trust is a mutual experience that reflects our ability to reconfigure or reassess what is working and not working in a mutual way. Unexpected unilateral actions always damage trust, especially when they appear to violate our agreements. The more we idealize trust the more we live with an obligation to live up to the confidence placed in us by others. We become attached to how open and trusting we can be as a way to demonstrate our degree of competence in the process. When we are thwarted in our ability to trust appropriately, our anger is commonly expressed in blaming others. When we idealize trust we feel vulnerable and unconfident. Then when our trust appears to be violated, this false confidence collapses. When our trust proves to be unfounded, it is very upsetting.

The hidden belief of Idealized Trust is “I despise others taking advantage of the weak, just like I hate others taking advantage of me”. When we connect these two concepts together, we are perpetually the underdog seeking to slay Goliath. Our mission, because we choose to declare it so, is to uplift others (even if they may not see the benefit of it) and find ways to make the world better. The problem is that we want to do more than is practically possible. As we attempt to change what is, we confront resistance, and it becomes more difficult to change things than we imagined. Instead of seeking others to expand our contribution it is more effective to take action in our own framework and become an example of transformation in the world. The more we take on other people’s issues, the less effective we are. The more we get identified with these large contributions that we need others to help us make, the more egotistically focused we become, which decreases our alignment and our ability to successfully interact. We believe that others should be humble in the face of our commitment. We get caught up in others not following our instructions or not trusting us. Idealized Trust is greatly amplified when we operate with a false degree of confidence and expect others to do the same. When this occurs, our agreements break down and we need to confront the truth of the situation that we have previously ignored. 

What makes Idealized Trust difficult is the realization that we want things to be better but we do not know how to organize our interactions so that we can trust others to respond appropriately. Instead, we tend to either over-trust them by giving them too much credit and making excuses for them, or not trusting them at all and constantly criticize them when they do not feel abundant, gracious or giving. When we are in an Idealized Trust situation, we tend to make uniform decisions based on all of our experiences, rather than customizing our trust based on the experience we have with each individual. What is helpful is to notice what keeps things fresh, alive and real. We do not need to be heavily structured to have a sense of balance with another. Instead, we could explore what works and talk about it on a regular basis so that the feedback helps us to refine the process.

Now we will address how to heal our Idealized Trust conditioning. When we step into our feminine power, sometimes we feel we have to prove to others our capacity to make a difference in order to be appreciated by others. When this occurs, we create an idealized version of our self— interacting with an idealized version of them. We imagine that our potential needs to be met by their potential in order to fulfill the larger possibility. Let us release our potential into the world, rather than holding onto it. Let us release the need to trust and be trusted, so that we can allow the world to unfold more naturally and directly. Let us embrace the awareness that truth emerges over time, and that some explorations or ideas do not need to be manifested now. When we release our need to be seen for our contribution, we allow our Self to fully contribute without holding anything back. This type of surrender invites true response and participation from others. Unfortunately, the more we hold on to our perception about the problem, the more we empower it and limit our ability to move into a larger common solution.

When our vision becomes about what others should do to make our idea a reality, we naturally distance ourselves from the people we are trying to serve. Instead of fixating on what they need to do to manifest the vision, we can choose to lead by example and let others follow at the level they are able. When we admire them for what they contribute, we begin the healing process where we see how much their intention is fully present. This releases us from our fear that we will not make a difference or be appreciated for our potential. When we see ourselves receiving whatever is needed, it is because we consciously wishing the best for others around us. This is the secret to releasing our attachment to Idealized Trust, so we can move into Universal Dominion. Let us honor the lessons of others by not assuming that they need any guidance or support in defining their life direction. Instead, let them define their own expression and direction and be supportive to their true intentions. When we honor the authentic expression of others, we create the possibility of mutual alignment without compromise.

The three belief structures of Romance, Motives, and Love assert their power whenever we are not conscious of our true choices. Romantically, by externalizing and idealizing trust in terms of outer results, we are always keeping our self from being satisfied with where we are currently operating. In order to produce a tension that motivates us, we unconsciously believe our dissatisfaction is necessary to right a wrong. The subject of our dissatisfaction usually reflects some way in which we felt denied or discounted in our past. By being in touch with this pain, we try to prevent it from recurring, not realizing its usefulness in our own growth process. This is why we seek to impose a solution on the world without considering the value of the problem to the people affected by it.

Idealized Trust reflects an over-attachment to a solution that really prevents the solution from fully emerging. In other words, our need to fix the problem reinforces the problem mentality, rather than opening a door for others to take responsibility for their own needs and lessons. Only by seeing and accepting the perfection of what is, can we move into the possibility of what will be. This does not mean we should not be committed to envisioning a world that works for everyone, but that we cannot impose our idea of the solution on others. This means we need to act constructively by participating with others in equal ways to co-create solutions rather than affirming that there is a solution that is the “right answer” to the problem. A primary indicator that we are caught in a motive of Idealized Trust is that we believe we have the answer in a way that denies or discounts the perspective of others.

It is our passion and commitment to do something that separates us, in our minds, from the faint-hearted “Bliss Bunny” approach we come to despise. As social activists and crusaders, we believe someone has to step forward and take charge to make things happen. We do not accept there is a natural, evolutionary growth process by which people learn from their circumstances and take greater responsibility for themselves. Instead, we are attached to getting results now and will even use force and coercion to push things forward. We are blind to the fact that, when we produce reactions in others, it actually slows the process in others and reduces their ability to engage the lessons before them. Romantically, we are also over-attached to the idea that we need to manufacture a sense of confidence in the people we are trying to help about the problem so they will take action and/or demonstrate their unwillingness to accept the status quo. We commonly believe this means they have to more confidence in us than they have in themselves.

We use our perceptions of infinite love to justify our need to act for the benefit of others when they cannot act for themselves. In this way, we overstep our boundaries and become part of the problem because we are distancing ourselves from others by using the problem to differentiate our perspective from theirs. This often shows up as believing that we know better what others need than they do themselves. It is ironic that, in our desire to create safety for others, we want them to be overly reliant on us rather than build their natural self-reliance. This means they will always need us because they have not learned to be the source of the solution themselves. The problem we commonly face when we operate from Idealized Trust is that, while we are committed to making things better, we cannot see and accept the perfection that people are naturally faced with the problems they need for their growth. In others words, there is some value in people experiencing the problem that we need to address in order to support their growth. In short, we cannot “fix” people without their taking responsibility for fixing themselves. The frustration we feel in this motive is that many decline our help and, therefore, maintain status quo.

The love and romance beliefs that support our Idealized Trust blind us to the self-importance we desire, particularly when it comes to defining the problem as we see it. In others words, we subtly increase our value by constantly redefining the problem in ways that require us to take the lead in solving it. Until we can get balanced in ourselves and be open and receptive to defining the problem in a way that others can participate and take charge equally in its solution, it is likely we are distancing ourselves in self-sabotaging ways. This gap between our responsibility and theirs is the core issue that keeps us from co-creating solutions. As long as we are attached to defining our self as the solution, we unconsciously project on others that they are mainly problem, not us.  In a state of Universal Dominion, we take complete ownership for the problem and the solution and do not use blame, shame, or guilt to apportion fault for the problem or credit for the solution.

The answer is to release our attachment to pre-determined personal perspectives and seek solutions with people. We need to give up any beliefs or judgments that distance us from the people we are trying to serve. We need to see, accept, and honor their perspective so that the solutions we bring into play support their natural evolution and growth. The key is to meet people where they are and to see our self as a catalyst that allows others to define the problem in a way that produces results for them. This means we cannot be attached for fixing them or taking credit for how they change. If it really is our mission to contribute in some manner, we need to be able to incorporate the resources of everyone involved to shift the situation and the consciousness so that the problem is no longer seen and interpreted as it previously was. As a catalyst, change is the natural result of meeting and honoring everyone exactly where they are so that their resourcefulness can be brought into play.

We heal ourselves when we no longer are differentiating ourselves as someone who gets things done, in contrast to others who are indifferent or passive about dealing with their problems. We are able to be appropriately trusting when we no longer idealize the results we want or expect others to live up to our ideals. This requires us to honor the free will of others and value that they have their own authentic course of action to pursue. When we can see that everyone benefits to the degree to which they participate in the process and envision themselves as part of a larger process, we are no longer idealizing or distancing ourselves from our own ability to trust. In this way, we learn when it is appropriate to expand our trust by taking the risk of inviting others to be trusting with us. We learn to trust others to the degree to which we are able to trust ourselves.

A hidden denied belief is a default assumption that we operate from when we are unconscious. It reflects the worst-case scenario where we are self-identified with being a rescuer who can have an impact. The more we see ourselves as a social activist or crusader who is out to save the world, the more likely it is we are, in our own minds, diminishing the ability of others to determine their own destiny.  It is our inability to speak our Truth (including our fears) that prevents everyone from operating on an equal footing. As long as we live in the illusion that we need to care for others in a

way they cannot care for themselves, it is unlikely our unique contribution will be seen or accepted. Everyone has a unique contribution that makes things flow easier. The more we latch onto our personality’s view of how to make our contribution unique, the less we will be able to truly contribute.

Our self-identification with our survival and success personality mechanism is proportional to our need to assert ourselves, our truth, and our beliefs on others. The more we have a self-inflated view of our own potential and do not incorporate the energy or potential of others in creating the solution, the more likely it is we are caught up in a personality illusion. This distortion of the Truth often occurs when we think of ourselves as so irreplaceable and critical to the solution, we imagine the solution cannot occur without us. While we do have a unique contribution to make, our unavailability would not prevent the solution from occurring. This moving from a personality perspective to a creative self-perspective is a difficult transition that demonstrates we are finally coming into a maturity about our way of being. This reflects that we are starting to see and accept the transpersonal view that everyone has a contribution to make and, if we do not include everyone in the process, we will be missing something fundamental and necessary for a balanced, complete solution.

When we see how the motive of Idealized Trust operates in us, we start to realize that the more we try to force our perspective on others, the more we sabotage the contribution we want to make. To be an effective catalyst, we need to be flexible and fluid in our ability to meet others so their resourcefulness can emerge. Our need to take credit for results sabotages us and those with whom we are interacting. To be truly open to possibilities, we need to let go of the notion that our idea will transform the situation. Instead, we need to operate from the belief that we always have the potential to discover the resources needed to bring perceived challenges into a mutual expression of abundance and good will. This requires us to engage everyone in a way that honors and acknowledges their part in the solution. Instead of being the source of the solution, we need to find ways to make others the source of the change they are trying to bring about. For many of us, this means finding the inner humility that lets us see how much of the problem still needs to be addressed while simultaneously honoring what is being accomplished right now.

The more we can build mutual confidence in a co-creative process, rather than needing to be the source of confidence, the healthier the group and the process will be. Trust happens naturally if people are willing to be present with their strengths and weaknesses and ask for help when it is needed. When others need a leader to assume the burden of maintaining the confidence of the group, the group is not co-creating its own solution. Instead, it is setting itself up for inappropriate giving and receiving, where we need assurances and demand others give to us what we really need to be giving to ourselves. We are usually blind to the issues or circumstances until we develop confidence in our own self-presence. Our ability to assess our own circumstances and share our own Truth effectively lets a group benefit from our observations. It is through sharing individual perspectives that a larger, group understanding develops. What sabotages this process is fear of our own inadequacy projected into others. We can best overcome this by becoming able to share our Truth so that new resources in the group can be developed that are currently not apparent.

It takes being committed to an intention and the strength to deal with our weakness to transform problems into opportunities. We need to see that sharing our weaknesses actually makes us stronger as a co-creative group because it builds trust in our resourcefulness. Resourcefulness emerges when we confront problems. This is what is meant by the phrase, “necessity is the mother of invention”. Without the ability to engage others and admit the limits of our own perceptions, we cannot build a foundation that will enable our resourcefulness to emerge. The more we naturally manifest resourcefulness, both internally and with others, the greater our natural trust in them and ourselves. Potential is nothing without the intention to engage our creative being and manifest the answer we know is there. Sometimes this means we need to have faith that the process will unfold in a way we cannot currently envision. This usually occurs after we have demonstrated to ourselves that things have a way of working out naturally so that everyone is supported. This requires us to go beyond our personal perspective and see the larger point of view and how the participation of everyone is important to the solution. A lack of inner safety will prompt us to regress into superficial expectations, beliefs, and confidence in a leader figure to offset our lack of inner resolve or commitment.

Each person experiences trust as something that either empowers a bright future or denies it. When we are unable to trust our self, we seek others who would take responsibility for the care and supervision of our destiny. In such a situation, we are reassured by people who have similar beliefs and expectations and who at least appear to be able to manifest a solution. When we create our trust from within, we are able to engage others in a way that indicates the degree to which they trust themselves which emanates from their inner alignment rather their outer presentation. When we are conscious about trust, we take responsibility for our own natural evolution and growth. We appreciate others’ own self-discovery processes and are open to the possibility of co-creative endeavor.

Taking ownership for the creation of our future lets us break out of co-dependent patterns where we need to prove ourselves by taking responsibility for others or rely on them to manifest what we need. We no longer need to have superficial confidence based on what we believe a person is doing because we experience inwardly their commitment to fulfill their mission. We can confirm this by seeing how we respond to their mission. Do we naturally respond and engage the process they present? Do they include our perspectives in the process? To the degree we are polarized by their process, they will meet resistance in manifesting their intent. Ultimately, our true contribution is reflected by what we evoke in others. Their participation is needed to produce results. Everything comes into focus as a result of people being seen, heard, and valued. Any type of polarization reflects how we are currently repressing the perspectives of our partners or our constituents.

From this we are able to see how many of the social activists were unsuccessful because of the polarization they created or how they succeeded by bringing harmony to the lessons they engaged. For example, Larry Kramer of “Act Up” has been a polarizing social activist, while Mahatma Gandhi was a much more unifying figure who inspired participation and co-creation. This is because Gandhi used the intuitive motive of Universal Dominion much more than he used Idealized Trust. People who are polarizing activists are doomed to create resistance to the degree they are operating in Idealized Trust. Any activist that cannot make a sustainable difference reflects how their own self-importance has gotten in the way of the contribution they are trying to make. Instead of empowering their constituents, they disempowered them by the means they used in trying to help them. Idealized Trust awakens us to the fact that the means of supporting of others is as important as the result.