Dear Peter and Alessa:

I agree with you, Alessa, “I think the difficulty with severe abuse is that it causes structural issues – brain damage as well as deregulating the nervous system. It is not just that there is attachment. If only it were as simple as attachment.”

For survivors, trauma isn’t only a mental construct that can be resolved by detachment—it’s a lived, embodied experience that leaves lasting psychological and physiological effects.

Psychologists argue that detachment is problematic when used to bypass emotional processing. Trauma survivors often need to actively engage with their experiences rather than detach from them, as avoidance can lead to suppressed emotions and unresolved pain.

Excessive detachment can lead to emotional numbness, making it difficult to form meaningful relationships or process emotions in a healthy way. Some forms of detachment—such as dissociation—are linked to trauma responses, where individuals disconnect from reality as a defense mechanism.

Detachment can be helpful in reducing stress and gaining perspective, but it is not a substitute for emotional processing. For trauma survivors, active healing—through acknowledgment, integration, and self-compassion— are necessary before detachment can be beneficial.

Peter, you appear to be suggesting that trauma is real only in the temporal world but not in the eternal world. Your perspective seems to align with the idea that suffering, betrayal, and separation exist in human experience (the temporal realm), but in the greater reality (the eternal realm), wholeness was never truly lost.

I understand that you see trauma as real only in the human, time-bound experience, but not in the greater reality of wholeness (a belief that I still find comfort in). You suggest that awakening to this eternal truth dissolves suffering, rather than needing to “fix” past wounds.

This makes me wonder—does acknowledging the reality of trauma in the temporal world interfere with awakening, or is it a necessary step toward it?

You argued that processing betrayal only leads to “dealing with” it, not healing. But for many trauma survivors, full healing requires first recognizing the reality of harm before transcendence is possible. If betrayal is treated as merely a mental construct sustained by identification, there’s a risk of bypassing the deep emotional and physiological effects that trauma leaves behind.

Here’s my question: Does detachment need to be preceded by acknowledgment and emotional integration, or do you see transcendence as an immediate path forward? If trauma is “not real” in the ultimate sense, does that mean the suffering attached to it doesn’t warrant full emotional acknowledgment before moving on?

I’d love to hear your perspective on this.

anita