I have developed a self-regulation system that allows change at the physiological level. Does it have any merit?
I'm not going to answer the question I think you want answered: whether your system has merit. Instead, I'm going to answer a related question that I think you actually need answered: How do you determine if a therapeutic approach is effective?

Ultimately, this sort of question can only be answered with a clinical trial. In a clinical trial, your approach will be tested against other approaches or placebo approaches to look for differences in outcomes. In order to do a clinical trial, you need to get the permission of an appropriate regulatory body in order to enroll subjects and continue. Doing anything else is unethical.

In order to get this permission, you need some credibility in the field. For this sort of project, that would probably start with either having some sort of degree or certification as a clinical psychologist or therapist, or recruiting people with those credentials to help you with your study. If you don't think your idea is worth this effort, your idea is not worthwhile.

On the way to getting this education, you will learn about existing strategies that are used, which will help you to refine and consider your own terminology. Maybe you think you've invented something new but find that it already exists under a term you didn't know. Maybe you find someone else has already studied something similar and found no effect. Maybe you find that your idea is really a novel improvement to something already used in practice. Learning these things will help you to frame your idea. If you don't think your idea is worth this effort, your idea is not worthwhile.

If you want to go in more depth along this way of thinking, the next step would be a research degree, most likely a PhD. The training for a PhD will teach you how to approach these ideas scientifically, to look through the literature, and just generally to go deeper into a topic than you would in a clinical position. 

Note that there are many many many people that go down this path and put a lot of effort into their work: there aren't really any easy answers left. It's a lot of work to find positive results. You probably won't start researching your own ideas, but rather expanding incrementally on the work of others. At that point, you will have enough credibility and background knowledge to test new hypotheses. You might find that your original thinking makes no sense. You might find new motivations by reading about other peoples' work (and 'standing on the shoulders of giants'). If you don't think your idea is worth this effort, your idea is not worthwhile.