The principle of non-aggression

In the field of psychosomatic medicine, the distinction between illness (symptom) and the sick person is not immediately evident. The symptom is in a profound way a symbol for the whole person who, by lack of anything better, aims this way towards integration. The symptom is not separate from the person in the same way as a dent in a car is separate from that car. On a symbolic level, the symptom is the person. Attacking a symptom readily equals to attacking the person, on a symbolic and physical level.

An aggressive attack is also possible using suggestion. e.g. with a smoking addiction one can build up an aggressive aversion to smoking. Positive thinking by itself is also a way of attacking. "I become every day more and more someone who does not smoke. I can and will do that." This is an attempt to force the subconscious into a certain direction. One can win a ‘battle’ in this but eventually always loses the ‘war’.

With Aurelis, aggression is completely avoided. Aurelis is fully supportive using the 'inner strength' which is already present within the person. In other words, the patient is supported in his latent capacity towards self-healing starting from the subconscious. Aurelis never leads anyone to an aggressive battle with himself. There is always a striving for integration, e.g. of chronic fear or of one or another symptom. The symptom is not 'cut away' but transformed. The result is a much more profound healing of the whole person. If the symptom is simply cut away, nothing further is done with it. It is a missed opportunity. Worse, one can see it as causing a psychological scar, the result of aggression against oneself.

A clear example is a smoking addiction. This is embedded within the whole person. Attacking the addiction is at the same time attacking the person himself. One may quit smoking cigarettes, but the addiction itself remains continuously present. This can as such return to the foreground or express itself as something else.

Conclusion: Aurelis has a different orientation than the paradigm of ‘attacking a disease’ that characterizes our modern medicine so generally. This paradigm of attacking is not completely wrong, but in many cases - psychosomatics in general - it is at least problematic. Then Aurelis is an effective supplement, a rational alternative that hopefully makes irrational alternatives unnecessary.