Hi Daniel, I've already commented recently on your welcome page. Hope it's okay to write another one here. First, just watched your video on being mugged. I'm very glad you're okay. What a thoughtful, good way you responded to the two young men by allowing for your common humanity to manifest in the context of their otherwise dehumanizing act. Second, I have three questions about what might be called the anatomy or architecture of trauma. (If you do wish to respond to these questions, please don't rush on my account under the circumstances you're in; I express this now while the spirit moves me, not with any expectation for you to respond). Before I ask the questions explicitly, let me try to set the context, which has to do with a central theme of yours, namely the root of trauma in childhood experience, particularly people's childhood experience of having their sense of themselves shut down by their parents (who were likely acting out of unresolved trauma from their own childhoods). You've also pointed out that society beyond the family unit is a potential source of trauma (e.g., in the excessive authority and thereby de facto freedom to traumatize that parents often have over the children, who are often not believed, for example, when they report their parents). And you've also pointed out, or effectively revealed, that formal education can itself be a source of trauma (e.g., insofar as the field of psychotherapy is more preoccupied with profit than helping people equally,or insofar as the field de-emphasizes the significance of trauma in order to placate professionals who have their own unresolved traumas). My first question: are the above three sources of trauma (i.e., parents, parent-centric society, and profit-oriented/trauma-placating professionalism) a kind of perverse trinity? That is, are they three dimensions of the same phenomenon of trauma, meaning that an authentic triad of parents-society-professionalism is necessarily part of trauma's resolution (allowing that these terms can be played out in unconventional ways, for instance by recognizing the role of an authentic parent in people who aren't necessarily one's official parents)? My second question: if the above line of thought has any truth to it, is it not possible, if only in theory, for a particular experience of trauma to be explained by one of the dimensions - or by one combination of them - more so than any other? For example, could one be traumatized not by one's parents per se, but by the broader parent-centric society? To elaborate on this theoretical example: say one's parents do a beautiful job of validating and fostering one's identity, only for a school system to indoctrinate one into believing that parents, whether good or bad or some mixture, by default have the primary say in their children's development (e.g., by a teacher not believing a student's reason for missing a class unless a parent has signed an explanatory note, which could be a traumatic experience if, say, for instance, the reason has to do with a terrible accident involving the student's parents, rendering them unable to write a note). Or, to give one more theoretical example, say one's parents and one's society have been nothing but nurturing, yet the formal knowledge that one studies suggests otherwise. To extend this example: say one well on the path to enlightenment until, for some reason, one becomes enthralled by Jordan Peterson in a university setting and thereby believes in his approach to parenting, overlooking its authoritarian implications (which you do a splendid job of critiquing by the way)? In short, it seems to me, that one can have good parents and live in a bad society with bad forms of education in it; or one can have good parents and live in a good society but get a bad formal education; just as one can luck out in all three areas, and so on and so forth. So, third question: am I confusing issues or is there any truth to my meanderings?