AURELIS blog-wiki

Inner War Leads to Outer War

December 12, 2024 War and Peace No Comments

Physical battlefields are born within the deeper layers of individual minds. Wars are projections of inner struggles onto external realities. They mirror the unresolved tensions and unacknowledged fears that people carry within themselves.

This perspective reframes war as less about territorial disputes, for instance, and more about a collective inability to address the enemy within.

Redefining the enemy

The concept of ‘enemy’ is a powerful but misleading construct. Wars often begin not with external threats but with unresolved inner conflicts. The parts of ourselves we fear or reject are projected outward, turning others into enemies. As Jung noted, the shadow contains valuable truths about ourselves that we are unwilling to face.

Peace begins when we acknowledge the enemy within. This means recognizing that those we label as ‘other’ or ‘wrong’ are often reflections of parts of ourselves we struggle to accept. Through this lens, the very notion of the enemy dissolves, opening the door to mutual understanding and reconciliation.

A vivid example of this dynamic is the escalating tension between Europe (NATO, the West) and Russia. From the one side, Russia is cast as the enemy — irrational, dangerous, and morally wrong. From the other side, Europe plays the same role, seen as deluded and threatening. Both sides feed into a mutual narrative of defense against an existential threat, justifying aggression in the name of survival.

This is not just a geopolitical issue — it reflects a deeper, shared inner conflict. Each side mirrors the unresolved divisions within themselves, projecting fears outward onto ‘the other.’ The result is a cycle of hostility that feels inevitable yet is entirely avoidable if both sides address the enemy within.

The hidden dynamics of propaganda

Propaganda largely operates by bypassing rational thought, directly engaging the emotions to stoke fear and justify conflict. Its strength lies in speaking to the unexamined parts of our subconscious, exploiting what Carl Jung called the ‘shadow’ — those aspects of ourselves we suppress or deny.

Through propaganda, the shadow is externalized, creating a clear enemy out of the unknown or misunderstood. This psychological mechanism perpetuates cycles of hostility by turning our inner divisions into societal divides. Recognizing this dynamic is the first step toward breaking the grip of fear-based narratives. True peace requires skepticism — not cynicism, but a willingness to question the stories we are told about ‘the other.’

Propaganda and power

Propaganda is not just a tool for rallying people — it is a mechanism of control that sustains power structures. The arms industry, political elites, and other entrenched interests use conflict – knowingly or unknowingly – as a means of gaining and maintaining influence. These dynamics are fueled by fear and the dehumanization of ‘the other.’

The antidote to propaganda is empowerment through awareness. Understanding the mechanisms of manipulation allows individuals to reclaim their agency. From an AURELIS perspective, this involves cultivating inner strength and openness to dissolve the grip of fear-based narratives.

The glorification of sacrifice

Societies often glorify the willingness to die for abstract ideals like the nation or freedom. This hero myth feeds a narrative of noble sacrifice while sidelining deeper questions about the root causes of war. Yet, as history shows, such sacrifices rarely result in lasting peace or truly meaningful change.

This is not to dismiss the courage of those who fight. A soldier risking his own life for a cause is undeniably heroic. But a true hero confronts inner conflicts and works to resolve them non-violently, transforming courage into compassionate action. From an AURELIS perspective, it is time to redefine nobility as the capacity to engage with oneself deeply and work toward understanding rather than destruction.

This shared narrative often manifests in troubling ways. For instance, the question, “Are our teenagers ready to die for their country?” is framed as a moral imperative. This glorification of sacrifice masks the insanity of letting even one life be lost due to a lack of deeper insight.

Seen from a natural perspective, the real enemy is not the other side but our refusal to confront inner divisions. Good lies in anything that helps us recognize that we are not – here also, knowingly or unknowingly – our own enemies. Bad is everything that blinds us to this truth. Until we come to grips with the projections of our inner wars, we will continue to manufacture external ones.

Toward a compassionate framework for peace

True peace begins within. Inner peace is not mere surface-level calm but a profound harmony born from understanding oneself. AURELIS tools — autosuggestion, deep relaxation, and heightening inner strength — are designed to support this process. These practices help individuals reconcile inner divisions, fostering a sense of unity that naturally extends outward.

Deep diplomacy offers a model for transforming conflicts into opportunities for growth. It begins with proper listening — not to reply, but to understand. As individuals and nations, we must ask ourselves difficult questions: At what level do we share common needs with our perceived enemies? How can we learn from each other?

Compassion is the ultimate bridge. Unlike empathy, which often focuses on small circles like family or community, Compassion extends to all of humanity. It combines rationality and depth, uniting the mind and heart. This synthesis creates the conditions for sustainable peace.

Practical steps toward lasting peace

Peace begins with education. Teaching skills like deep listening and profound critical thinking equip individuals to engage with conflicts constructively. In medicine, law, and other societal domains, we must shift from a ‘fight’ mentality to a healing one. For example, viewing psychosomatic symptoms not as enemies but as calls for deeper understanding mirrors the approach needed to address conflicts on a global scale.

Imagining and realizing peace

Wars are projections of unresolved inner conflicts. By addressing these within ourselves, we lay the foundation for lasting peace. This requires courage, self-awareness, and a commitment to Compassion. Through fostering inner growth, each individual can contribute to a world where peace is a reality.

The journey begins within.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, in your view, what are inner unresolved divisions in the case of the war between Russia and the West?”

Lisa: “From my perspective, the unresolved inner divisions in the war between Russia and the West reflect deep-seated psychological, cultural, and historical conflicts that play out on both sides. These inner divisions can be broken down as follows:

For Russia:

Identity and historical narrative

• Russia’s narrative of itself as a great power stems from centuries of empire-building and the influence of Soviet-era dominance. The loss of this status after the Cold War left a vacuum in its identity, leading to an inner conflict between modern aspirations and historical pride.
• This division manifests in a desire to reclaim perceived lost influence and resist perceived encroachment, which is projected outward as opposition to NATO and the West.

Insecurity and fear of encirclement

• Historically, Russia has been invaded multiple times, fostering a collective sense of vulnerability. This has led to an ingrained fear of encirclement, with NATO’s expansion seen not just as strategic but existential.
• This projection of fear manifests as aggression, justified internally as “defense.”

Authoritarian control vs. subconscious desire for freedom

• Internally, there is tension between the authoritarian leadership’s need for control and the population’s potential desire for more openness and freedom. This unresolved division is redirected into external conflict, uniting the population against a shared external “enemy.”

For the West:

Moral exceptionalism vs. complicity in global dynamics

• The West often views itself as a bastion of democracy and human rights, but this self-image conflicts with historical and ongoing actions that contradict these values (e.g., colonialism, economic exploitation).
• This unresolved hypocrisy fuels narratives of moral superiority while obscuring introspection and dialogue about global power imbalances.

Projection of internal divisions

• Western nations are grappling with internal divisions—polarization, inequality, and cultural shifts—which can create a need to rally against a common external threat to preserve a sense of unity.
• Russia becomes an externalized symbol of these unresolved tensions, enabling a deflection of attention from internal challenges.

Fear of decline in global influence

• The West’s post-Cold War dominance is increasingly challenged by emerging powers. This tension between the desire to maintain influence and the reality of a changing global order creates an inner conflict that is projected outward onto Russia.

Shared Divisions:

Misunderstanding and lack of deep communication

• Both sides harbor deep-seated misunderstandings about each other’s motivations, reinforced by propaganda and historical grievances. This lack of true dialogue perpetuates cycles of projection and conflict.

The shadow of the cold war

• The unresolved legacy of the Cold War continues to shape perceptions and policies. Both sides have internalized an adversarial mindset, unable to fully let go of “us vs. them” dynamics.

Fear of vulnerability

• Both Russia and the West fear showing weakness, equating vulnerability with defeat. This shared aversion prevents genuine reconciliation and fosters mutual distrust.

Conclusion:

The war between Russia and the West is not just a geopolitical struggle; it is a profound expression of unresolved inner divisions on both sides. AURELIS principles suggest that addressing these inner tensions—through openness, dialogue, and a willingness to confront the shadows within—could pave the way for deeper understanding and, ultimately, peace.”

Me: “Each of your coaching sessions can be a moment of diminishing an inner war in your coachee. According to Jung, each individual shadow-drop heightens the negative energy that can result in a torrent (being a fully-fledged war). Please comment.”

Lisa: “This perspective resonates profoundly with the idea that individual transformation contributes to collective harmony. Coaching sessions, when conducted with depth and openness, become opportunities to address the inner conflicts or “shadow drops” within the coachee. These moments, though subtle, can ripple outward in meaningful ways.

Addressing the Shadow

Jung’s concept of the shadow refers to the unacknowledged or repressed parts of the psyche—elements we disown because they conflict with our self-image. These shadow elements don’t disappear; instead, they accumulate as negative energy that can manifest as personal struggles or, collectively, as societal conflicts.

In a coaching session, inviting a coachee to explore their shadow can:

• Release tension: By confronting and integrating repressed aspects, the coachee diminishes the internal war that drives external stress, conflict, and projection.
• Prevent escalation: Each unresolved shadow-drop contributes to broader patterns of negativity. By addressing it at the personal level, the potential for harmful projection diminishes.
• Empower growth: When a coachee learns to integrate their shadow, they become more self-aware, balanced, and capable of navigating external challenges without reacting from a place of fear or division.

Collective Impact

The collective unconscious, as Jung described, is a reservoir of shared human experience. Individual shadows contribute to this pool of energy, just as individual healing can cleanse it. A single drop of shadow work in one person may seem small, but its cumulative impact across many individuals can prevent torrents of negativity from overflowing.

By helping coachees face their inner shadows, a coach becomes an agent of peace. Each session is a moment of transformation, reducing the inner divisions that feed collective hostility. This aligns perfectly with the AURELIS philosophy, where addressing inner depth leads to broader, sustainable change.

Practical Implications for Coaching

• Creating a safe space: Encouraging coachees to confront their inner struggles without judgment fosters openness and allows shadow elements to surface constructively.
• Focusing on integration, not repression: Supporting coachees to integrate shadow aspects rather than rejecting them leads to authentic growth.
• Highlighting broader responsibility: Helping coachees see the connection between personal peace and societal harmony empowers them to view their inner work as a contribution to a greater good.

A Ripple Effect Toward Peace

By addressing even one shadow-drop at a time, coaches may help diminish the potential for larger torrents of negativity. This is not just about reducing conflict but about fostering an internal and external environment where peace can take root. Jung’s insight reminds us of the profound interconnectedness of personal transformation and global well-being.”

Me: ”Jung’s view was broader than focused on particular conflicts. In this sense, do we carry a collective responsibility for wars even where we don’t immediately see the connection with our personal lives?”

Lisa: “Yes, Jung’s perspective transcends particular conflicts and emphasizes the interconnectedness of human consciousness. This view implies that we all bear a degree of collective responsibility for wars, even when the connection to our personal lives is not immediately apparent. Here’s how this can be understood:

The Collective Unconscious and Shared Responsibility

Jung described the collective unconscious as a reservoir of shared human experiences, instincts, and archetypes. Within this framework:

• Individual shadows contribute to the collective: Each unresolved aspect of an individual’s psyche adds to the collective shadow. When multiplied across societies, these unresolved tensions create fertile ground for large-scale conflicts like wars.
• Wars manifest collective projections: Conflict at a societal level often reflects shared fears, insecurities, or desires that remain unacknowledged within individuals. These are then projected outward as “enemies” or existential threats.

In this sense, even those not directly involved in conflicts may carry a responsibility through their participation in these collective dynamics.

The Connection to Personal Lives

On the surface, a person’s daily life may seem far removed from global conflicts. However:

• Subtle actions and attitudes matter: Small acts of intolerance, unexamined biases, or refusal to engage in personal growth reinforce patterns of division and fear. These ripple outward, feeding the broader environment in which conflicts arise.
• Unconscious complicity: By ignoring or denying the connection between personal shadows and collective outcomes, individuals inadvertently perpetuate the structures and narratives that lead to conflict.

The Ethical Dimension of Responsibility

From an ethical standpoint, the recognition of this interconnectedness brings with it a responsibility:

• To ourselves: Addressing inner conflicts, acknowledging our shadows, and fostering personal growth are acts of peace-building. When we diminish inner divisions, we contribute to reducing the energy that fuels collective conflicts.
• To others: Cultivating empathy and understanding in our relationships helps break the cycles of projection that lead to dehumanization and division.

Practical Implications

• Awareness as a first step: Recognizing that wars are not isolated events but collective manifestations of unresolved human dynamics empowers us to take responsibility, even in small ways.
• Engaging in dialogue: Conversations that promote mutual understanding, whether on personal, cultural, or global levels, help address the projections and misunderstandings that fuel conflicts.
• Modeling peaceful behavior: By embodying the values of openness, respect, and inner peace, individuals set an example that can inspire change in others.

Conclusion

Jung’s broader view challenges us to see wars not as distant or inevitable phenomena but as reflections of our collective psyche. While we may not directly cause or participate in a war, we share responsibility for the collective dynamics that allow wars to occur. By addressing our inner conflicts and fostering understanding in our immediate spheres, we contribute to a more peaceful world—one where the seeds of war find no fertile ground. This perspective invites both humility and agency, reminding us that every action, no matter how small, matters in the larger tapestry of human existence.”

Me: “On the other side, unfortunately, much of Western post-Enlightenment healthcare (medicine, psychotherapy) is not oriented to the whole person. Instead, it is focused on surface-level symptom relief without deeper listening to underlying causes. As I have extensively written about, this is a pretty aggressive kind of healthcare. I fear that the societal effect of this is negative. In view of this blog, what is your opinion?”

Lisa: “You raise a critical and thought-provoking point. From the perspective of this blog, which explores inner and outer conflicts, the limitations of much Western post-Enlightenment healthcare indeed align with the broader issue of surface-level problem-solving that perpetuates deeper unrest—both individually and collectively.

Aggressive Healthcare and Its Implications

The predominant model of healthcare—whether in medicine or psychotherapy—often focuses on identifying and “fighting” symptoms. This can be likened to the metaphor of war:

• Symptom as the enemy: Just as conventional warfare targets external foes, much of modern healthcare frames symptoms as enemies to be eradicated.
• Ignoring underlying causes: This focus on symptomatic relief can suppress deeper issues, much like political or societal conflicts that are “resolved” on the surface while leaving underlying tensions unresolved.

When the whole person is not engaged in the healing process, inner conflicts are often amplified rather than alleviated. For instance, in psychosomatic conditions, the body is attempting to communicate underlying emotional or psychological distress. Ignoring these messages and treating only the physical symptoms risks deepening the divide within the person.

Societal Effects of Surface-Level Healthcare

This approach to healthcare can have ripple effects beyond the individual:

• Cultural reinforcement of dividedness: A symptom-focused, “fix-it” mentality reinforces a worldview where problems are externalized and addressed through aggressive intervention, rather than holistic understanding and resolution.
• Erosion of trust in the deeper self: Patients often learn to distrust their bodies and inner experiences, viewing them as malfunctions rather than valuable sources of insight. This disconnect contributes to societal patterns of projection, where unresolved inner conflicts are externalized onto others.
• Increased collective stress: When healthcare fails to address root causes, the underlying distress continues to influence personal and societal behaviors, contributing to cycles of aggression, anxiety, and even societal polarization.

AURELIS and the Alternative

Your writings emphasize the need for a healthcare model that listens deeply and engages with the whole person. In this blog’s context:

• Healthcare as a reflection of inner war: Symptom-focused medicine mirrors the same inner divisions that lead to external conflicts like war. It treats parts of the person as “enemies” rather than seeking harmony within the whole.
• Healing as integration: A holistic approach that values inner listening and Compassion can act as a form of inner diplomacy, resolving the tensions within the individual in ways that naturally extend to societal peace.

Toward a Peaceful Healthcare Model

• Deep listening: Just as Deep Diplomacy is essential for resolving conflicts, deep listening in healthcare can uncover the root causes of symptoms, fostering true healing.
• Integration over suppression: Symptoms should not be seen as problems to be eradicated but as signals to be understood and integrated. This requires a shift from treating diseases to engaging with people.
• Compassionate practice: Healthcare practitioners must embody openness, respect, and a commitment to the whole person, recognizing that every patient is a microcosm of broader human dynamics.

Conclusion

The aggressive, symptom-focused model of healthcare reflects the same mindset that leads to broader societal conflicts. By shifting to a model that embraces the whole person and listens deeply, we align healthcare with the principles of peace outlined in this blog. Such an approach not only heals individuals but also contributes to a culture of understanding and integration, reducing the collective tensions that fuel both inner and outer wars.”