All in the mind?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Inner vs. outer change\u2019 is not about what happens inside or outside of one’s mind, but inside or outside of individual mental-neuronal patterns within one\u2019s mind. It is crucial to keep this, well, in mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It’s about the individual patterns, making this text pretty subtle. [see: “Patterns in Neurophysiology<\/a>“]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Relevance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Inner vs. outer\u2019 is relevant to mental change as may be sought in psychotherapy or mental coaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also relevant to other kinds of mental change. For instance, related to motivation [see: \u201cThere are No Extrinsic or Intrinsic Motivations.<\/a>\u201d], to organizational change, and to learning in general. [see: \u201cIs All Learning Associational?<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Towards more than ‘all in the mind’<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u2018outer\u2019 aspect can be projected anywhere else. In that case, it\u2019s about \u2018the other one\u2019 who coerces someone to change \u2013 from parent or teacher to any organization or culture. Still, what ultimately matters in change is how \u2018the other one\u2019 is perceived and of what he is a projection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u2018inner\u2019 aspect can be encountered anywhere else. For instance, in a mother-infant relationship, the symbiosis of mother and self is complete to the infant. Part of this keeps going on in later life, in other relationships, in coaching. To be noted, the latter is no \u2018transference.\u2019 [see:\u201d\u2018Transference\u2019<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Changing patterns from outside<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This view sees \u2018entrenched maladaptive patterns\u2019 as unwanted or pathological. They are like diseases that need to be cured. One can see in this what is called the medical model as encountered in many psychotherapies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this view, there are two options for change: 1) making the \u2018maladaptive pattern\u2019 disappear (extinction or excision), and 2) changing it into another pattern (activation and reconsolidation). For instance, in child motivation and animal domestication, both have been in use for a long time and in pretty mechanical ways. In both, recent cultural evolutions take different directions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Changing patterns from inside<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is mental growth. Entrenched maladaptive patterns are not seen as intrinsically pathological \u2015 thus not to be extinguished or replaced. They deserve to receive open attention. Only this way can they be examined with a deeply critical view. [see: \u201cBeing Critical Is A Good Thing<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only this way also, they can be deeply accepted for what they are, forming the basis for genuinely durable change. [see: \u201cMental Change: How it Works<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the microworld of human thinking. At any moment, many (thousands of) mental-neuronal patterns are forming and dissolving in what may be seen as the stream of non-consciousness. [see: “The Stream of Non-Consciousness<\/a>“] We are conscious of a fraction of this. [see: “The Post-Postmodernist Brain<\/a>“]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Resistance is always to outer change<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A bold statement that also depends on the definition of resistance. [see: \u201cResistance to Change<\/a>\u201d] This goes way down to life being a bubble inside a universe of entropy. [see: \u201cOrder out of Chaos?<\/a>\u201d] To life, change from outside carries the risk of puncturing the bubble \u2015 mental or physical death. This risk and surrounding anxiety create a natural resistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Resistance is especially present when deeper meaning is involved. This is, when change-from-outside could change one in-depth, where change is most meaningful. However, this is counter-productive if inner change is wrongfully attributed to the outside. Such is frequently the case in a state of inner dissociation. [see: \u201cInner Friend or Foe?<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Obviously, logically, this continual resistance within many people ends up in a socio-cultural crisis of meaningfulness. [see: \u201cThe Meaning Crisis<\/a>\u201d] One might call this a social depression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Towards the future<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I think we will see a growing antagonism between the just described change from outside versus inside in many years to come. Of course, both can be applicable in any concrete case. Even so, AURELIS is the choice for much \u2013 but not exclusive \u2013 change from the inside. [see: \u201cMental Patterns Change through Autosuggestion<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n In my view, this is the way of sustainable growth. [see: “Sustainable Growth = Inner Growth<\/a>“]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hopefully, the path towards this will be smooth.<\/p>\n