The Ideal Self
Robert S. Hartman sought to provide a Unified System for what it means for something to be "good." He believed that the same principles are in operation when we try to determine if a "car" is good as when we try to decide if "we" are good. He believed that if we could shine a light on those principles, it might help us become better people.
Hartman analyzed newspaper articles, novels, the classics, and dictionary definitions to determine how people use the word good. The advantage of taking this historical type of approach is that it allows us to determine when the word good is being used in accordance with mainstream usage and when it is not.
When Hartman finished his analysis, what he found was that people use the word "good" to mean that there is a correspondence between the way something actually is and the way we "ideally" want it to be. This led Hartman to the conclusion that "fulfillment" is a central component to our meaning of the word "good."
Robert Thompson, in his book called A Voluptuous God, makes the following point about fulfillment. He says, "If God loves us, he wants us to be happy." Logically, it does make sense that a loving God would want us to be fulfilled. A loving God should be "for us" when we go out and have a good time and that same God is also "for us" when we find fulfillment in helping others in need.
Let us analyze fulfillment a little further by looking specifically at need fulfillment. When a need is fulfilled, there is an "IDEAL" way it should be fulfilled and a number of possible variations that are not as good as the ideal. We can tell how well a need is being fulfilled by comparing the specifics of how we "ideally" want it to be fulfilled and how it is "actually" being fulfilled.
Plato talked of ideals. Everyday, we all speak of ideals when we talk about political ideals, religious ideals, fairness, justice, and so on. In Hartman's dissertation, entitled "Can Field Theory Be Applied to Ethics?", Hartman indicates that there is a kind of "magnetic force" of desire between actual things and their ideals. When something matches the ideal, the tension between the ideal and the actual disappears, and we call it "good."
What is an "ideal?" Typically, when we create an ideal, we start out by surveying all of the individual members that are contained in an abstract class. For example, to find the ideal for the abstract class called "car," we usually start out by surveying as many individual cars as we can. When we are surveying these individual cars, what we are looking for are the features we like most about each car. In order to create concept of the "ideal car" in our minds, we combine the best features, or properties, of all the individual cars that we have surveyed. An "ideal" is simply the "grasping together" of the best properties that we can think of for something.
We can think of ideals as being like "targets." The bullseye represents when the actual object matches the ideal, and the outer rings represent varying degrees of correspondence between the IDEAL and the ACTUAL. How do we determine how closely something matches its ideal? We do it by comparing the properties of the Actual object to the properties of the Ideal.
Here is a concrete example of how we compare an actual thing to it's ideal. Suppose that we think that an ideal car is one that is: 1) safe, 2) gets good gas mileage, and so on. In order to determine how "good" an actual car is, we compare it to the Ideal that we have in our head. We do this by comparing the "features" of the actual car to the "features" we think an ideal car should have. The closer the fit between the Actual and the Ideal, the less Tension we feel, and the "Better" the car is.
Since the match between properties of an Actual object and the properties of the Ideal determine the value of the object, things with more properties are, in general, more valuable than things with less. This is because things with more properties have greater possibilities of fulfilling more ideals.
Hartman wanted to organize values to the same extent that mathematics organized numbers.
Hartman had seen the damage that Hitler had done, and he wanted to serve as a counter-balance to that by organizing goodness as well as Hitler had organized evil.
Hartman turned to set theory to help him lay down his basic concepts. In set theory, he found that there are three distinct classes of sets: non-denumerably infinite; denumerably infinite, and finite. We all know what finite means, but what is the difference between these two types of infinite sets? Denumerable simply means that something can be numbered. A non-denumerably infinite set is like the set of all rational numbers, where there are an infinite number of points between any two numbers. A denumerable set is much smaller set like the set of all integers. Although the set of all integers is infinite, there is a definite number of points between any two numbers.
When Hartman applied these concepts from set theory to objects of value, he came up with three categories of objects based on the number of properties they contained.
1. Intrinsic objects - have non-denumerably infinite number of properties. When we view any object as being unique, it cannot be replaced. It is of infinite value. When we view something as unique, we construct the ideal from a class that only contains one member and, consequently, the actual object completely matches it's ideal. It is perfect in every manner, shape, and form because there is nothing else to compare it to other than itself, which it completely matches. From this perspective, we are all of infinite value. Typically, when we talk about intrinsic objects, we are usually referring to people.
2. Extrinsic objects - have denumerably infinite number of properties. When we view any object as a member of an abstract class, it can be replaced by other members of that class. This perspective views objects strictly from the perspective of how useful they are. From this perspective, one car can be replaced by another that can serve the purpose of getting us to our destination. In this view, we compare the actual object to the ideal for the entire class of objects to try to determine how good it is. Common examples of extrinsic objects include things, social roles, and actions that occur in space and time.
3. Systemic objects - have a finite number of properties. "System-ic" refers to the fact that the objects are parts of larger mental "systems." Systemic objects are purely mental constructions and are typically ideas, labels, ideologies, and status (which is rank within an organizational system). Although these mental constructs often point to, or belong to, people or things, they are not extended in space and time. Systemic objects are just ideas that are built out of combining a finite number of properties or other ideas. Everything the world of systemic objects is black and white. For example, something either fits under the label of being a "triangle" or it does not - there is no middle ground.
Since some of these concepts that were borrowed from set theory are hard to visualize, imagine the number of properties of objects as being similar to lumens of light. An intrinsic object could be compared to all of the light given off by the entire universe. An extrinsic object might be similar to the light given off by the Milky Way, and a systemic object would be similar to the amount of light given off by the sun.
By using this visual analogy, we can easily see that people (intrinsic objects) are much more valuable than any of their accomplishments (extrinsic objects), and what we do (extrinsic objects) is much more important than the status (systemic objects) we have.
What is the connection between how we value a car and how we value ourselves? The connection is that when we value ourselves (on the extrinsic level), we are comparing our Actual self to our Ideal self. We do this in the same way that we compare the Actual car to the Ideal one. Just as we feel a "tension" when an actual jalopy falls short of the ideal car, we also feel a tension (and it is like a magnetic force) when we fall short of our ideal.
What is the "IDEAL SELF?" According to Hartman's classification of objects, the most valuable ones are intrinsic objects or people. Thus, the ideal person is one that helps to build people up.
Religion and Evolution both agree on this point that the ideal person is one that "lifts themselves and others up." Religion says, "We should love our neighbors as ourselves." Evolution says, "Variety is important in the survival of the species." Both Religion and Evolution are saying it is important not to destroy any form of life - "Extinction is a bad thing." We all know that we feel bad when we "tear" ourself or others down, and we feel good when we build ourself and others up. Religion and Evolution agree on this, and it is built into our genetic makeup.
This principle of "building people up" that is the basis of the ideal self can be thought of as residing in a moral compartment in our minds. All of our language about goodness points to this principle. We should use the rational portion of our minds to help guide our activities so that they are in line with this principle. However, there is another part of ourselves that is more animalistic in nature. This irrational component can be thought of as residing in our hearts. Many have referred to this component as being the child within each of us. This "inner child" needs to be protected, lifted up, and valued intrinsically by the rational component, which could be referred to as our "inner parent."
The function of the "inner parent" is similar to that of our natural parents. It is to "enable" the inner child to experience as much joy as possible, and to also to help protect the irrational child when it starts to stray outside the safe boundaries of the "what helps to build people up."
Paul Ferrini, in his book called The Twelve Steps of Forgiveness, helps to clarify how we should always value our inner child intrinsically. Ferrini says that when we hold a grudge against someone we do it because we are projecting things that we do not like about our self onto others. For example, when we are hurt by someone, we feel anger inside and we are afraid the other person does not love us. We do not like this feeling and try to deny that it exists by blaming the other person.
When someone "hurts us," we do not directly feel hurt from the person hurting us. What actually happens is that other person has triggered a reaction in our inner child that we think is unacceptable. The inner child may be angry, sad, envious, jealous, unloved, or any other negative emotion that we do not want to acknowledge occurs within us. We assume that the connection between the other person's action and our reaction and subsequent disapproval is direct, but there is actually a "choice" that occurs between our knee-jerk reaction and our approval or disapproval. The instinctive, knee-jerk reaction is totally outside of our control and it should be not be disapproved of since we have no control over it.
There is a strong correlation between the amount of disapproval that we feel towards our inner feelings and the feelings we have for the person that hurt us, but the funny thing is that we hardly notice the disapproval we feel for our inner feelings when we are focusing all of our blame on someone else.
Paul Ferrini says the first step to forgiveness is to stop denying these inner feelings that are hard for us to deal with. He says we need to step back and look at ourselves as having an "inner child" within that often gets hurt and scared. Instead of banishing this inner child from the kingdom because it sometimes has feelings we find hard to accept, we need to "make the choice" to accept the inner child just as we do a normal child that sometimes gets hurt or has tantrums. By accepting and consoling the hurt child, we can learn to listen to what that child is trying to communicate to us about who we are and what we need.
How can we love the inner child when it is something negative and hurting? How can we love anything that is painful and negative? We can do it by realizing that the child that is now hurting is also the same child that is the fountain of joy in our lives. The hurt side of the child is just another side of the same coin that is responsible for much of the joy we feel at other times. Furthermore, by accepting this hurt, jealous, or envious child, we can eventually learn, by analogy, to accept the person that hurt us. For the person that hurt us is also just like the inner child that we have within ourselves that is both the source of pain and joy for our lives.
Any joy that we experience in life seems to come from this inner child within us. Regardless of whether the joy is caused by solving some intellectual problem or by healing some emotional wound, it is always this inner child that is rejoicing over the triumph. When we connect to someone else's inner child through love or by consoling them when they are hurt, we get to share in their inner child's joy and this is another great source of joy for our inner child.
By looking at ourselves as having a unique inner child within us, we can see that we are of infinite value and are always worthy of being loved, even when we are jealous, sad, or have fallen short of some goal we have set for ourself. By taking this perspective we can see ourselves and others as worthy of love, even when we fall short in giving it. Love should be the foundation of all of our evaluations, and any shortcomings we find should be seen as minor blemishes in the overall construction rather than as fatal flaws.
Ideally, the forgiveness that we feel is for everyone across the board. We can not arbitrarily say I will forgive this person, but not someone else. The inconsistency of adopting that unfair policy creates a tension in us. In real life, we know it is a lot easier to forgive some people than others. However, if we want to reduce the overall tension that we feel, the best approach is to try to forgive everyone equally.
Intrinsic love for the inner child in us and in others needs to be unconditional. This is because the inner child is always worthy of love since it is unique and cannot be replaced. By making the love for the inner child unconditional, we open the doorway to communication and can learn more about what the child truly needs. The love for the inner child should not depend on what the child does, just as the love for a real child does not depend upon what the child does - it is a constant that the child can depend on.
The worth of any individual is as great as all of the light in the universe - that is to say, the joy of the unique inner child in each of us exactly matches the overall light of the universe. In the same way that the light of the Milky Way adds to the overall light of the universe, we add to that overall light by trying to live up to our ideals. When we fall short of our ideals, there is still a tremendous amount of light in the universe - it is just not quite as bright as it could be.
The Ideal Self is one that learns to value all people from the perspective outlined in this essay and one that learns to lovingly forgive their own and others shortcomings.
In summary, there are three primary benefits that result from trying to be your ideal self. First, when we try to value everyone intrinsically, it helps us to better align ourselves with the principle of "lifting everyone up" that has been embedded and refined within us since the dawn of civilization. By aligning ourselves with this principle, we reduce the tension that we feel. Second, when we unconditionally value the "inner child" in everyone (even when that child is having tantrums), it helps to keep the doors of communication open so that we can better understand what our own and other's true needs are. Third, by learning to forgive everyone's shortcomings, we keep the pipeline open to the fountain of joy that is contained in the child in all of us.
One last point is that we need to be "authentic" when dealing with others. If we go about pretending to love everyone much more than we actually do, it takes a lot of energy to maintain that facade and others will see through our pretense. It makes more sense to just be honest with our shortcomings and at least try to be polite and kind while we struggle on the path to becoming our ideal self.