(Yesterday, 05:32 AM)callie Wrote:

(01-11-2026, 08:25 PM)Shannon Wrote: I'm not free to share how I deal with the trauma situation you describe because I don't really care to give my time, research funding and brain power away to my competitors.  What I will say is, your model of how trauma works may or may not fully agree with mine, and I may or may not take into account factors you either don't, or havn't thought of.

Very early trauma is extremely challenging to work with, I'll agree with you on that.  Communicating in a way that is effective with the involved parts, and then getting them to comprehend what has been communicated and cooperate, is very difficult.  It is also limited because they typically do not have the awareness or understanding to do very much, in part because they are so emotional and or instinctual in nature, and in part because of their age-related awareness levels.  It also doesn't help that they're usually blindly terrified.

But I have developed an approach for getting them to understand and work towards healing, and while it appears to have limitations in v1.0, I have learned enough from my testers that I can adjust most if not all of what I see needs to be adjusted.

My R&D on how to work with those parts is active and ongoing still.

I would be glad to discuss this in great detail with you, but I cannot do so without risking giving away information I had to pay for in time, brain power and money.

Fair enough. I was mostly curious about your underlying philosophy about this. But if that overlaps with you giving away information you dont want to share, I will undertand

That said, have you ever thought about whether very early or deeply traumatized parts might operate with such limited processing badnwith that communication or negotiation doesnt really land until a sense of safety is established first? In those states, doesnt it seem likely that the system may need repeated experiential signals of safety before those parts can begin to thaw from their frozen states?

Something like how a traumatized and abandoned dog learns safety and trust. First allowing proximity without demand then gradually increasing contact until closeness no longer automatically signals danger. I find myself unsure how that kind of safety can be demonstrated in the absence of an actual relational presence

(Yesterday, 05:39 AM)Have at ye Wrote:

(Yesterday, 05:32 AM)callie Wrote: Fair enough. I was mostly curious about your underlying philosophy about this. But if that overlaps with you giving away information you dont want to share, I will undertand

That said, have you ever thought about whether very early or deeply traumatized parts might operate with such limited processing badnwith that communication or negotiation doesnt really land until a sense of safety is established first? In those states, doesnt it seem likely that the system may need repeated experiential signals of safety before those parts can begin to thaw from their frozen states?

Something like how a traumatized and abandoned dog learns safety and trust. First allowing proximity without demand then gradually increasing contact until closeness no longer automatically signals danger. I find myself unsure how that kind of safety can be demonstrated in the absence of an actual relational presence

I believe such a sense of safety can be achieved through removal of stimuli that make these parts feel unsafe (so FRM and OGSF!), and as much of it as you can handle (as they're irrational and any kind of Fear or GSF can knock 'em off balance). Then, when such a feeling of safety has been achieved internally, work should be able to progress on working through infantile internal conflicts.

My two cents!

(Yesterday, 06:02 AM)callie Wrote:

(Yesterday, 05:39 AM)Have at ye Wrote: I believe such a sense of safety can be achieved through removal of stimuli that make these parts feel unsafe (so FRM and OGSF!), and as much of it as you can handle (as they're irrational and any kind of Fear or GSF can knock 'em off balance). Then, when such a feeling of safety has been achieved internally, work should be able to progress on working through infantile internal conflicts.

My two cents!

I agree that reducing destabilizing input is necessary. What Im less certain about is whether that alone establishes safety for very early, abandonment based systems. My question is whether those systems can relearn safety without some form of relational signal, since their original learning happened in the absence of one