A traumatic event is only a necessary condition for the occurrence of mental trauma. Necessary, but by no means sufficient. Mental trauma, I repeat, is the result of a blocked process of experiencing. Therefore, factors relevant to mental trauma will be the conditions of the body/environment field, which predispose to stopping the process of experiencing. One such factor is the lack of support in the field during a traumatic event. In other words, a traumatic event and the feelings accompanying it can be experienced until the integrity of the mental tissue is destroyed, turning into a kind of mental “scars - reminders of the event” in the mental representation of self functions. It is these “scars” that will subsequently determine what we call personality today. However, for such a favorable outcome in dealing with a traumatic event, a person needs the support of the field in which the process of experiencing occurs. For example, in the form of the willingness of loved ones to listen to a person who has been subjected to traumatic effects, the ability to accept his current feelings and behavior, which are not always convenient for others, sometimes even disturbing their comfort, and often safety. Of course, sometimes the environment is not sensitive enough and empathetic towards the victim of a traumatic event, and often openly aggressive or even hostile. Thus, the paths along which the process of experiencing can flow may not appear in the actual situation of the field. In this case, the experience cannot occur, and the remaining stopped excitation will be spent on the formation of traumatic phenomenology or any other symptoms, for example, psychosomatic. It is worth noting, however, that the lack of field resources in question, in turn, is a derivative of the characteristics functioning of self, i.e. it has to do not so much with the “reality” of the existing context of the field, but with the peculiarities of the perception of this context by the person experiencing the traumatic event. Such perception is often of a deficit nature, i.e. levels the field in accordance with his expectations. In this case, even a fairly supportive environment often turns out to be ignored or devalued by the person, who is ultimately left alone with the traumatic event and the feelings caused by it. Often this situation is a consequence of a person’s lack of experience in dealing with the support and care of others, as a result of which the very possibility of making such a request becomes impossible. The presence, even despite this feature, of the concern of others towards such a person is unbearable for him, therefore he is often ignored or devalued. V., a young man of 32 years old, a few months before seeking help, lost his beloved wife - she died tragically in a car accident. His little son, 6 years old, stayed with him. V. experienced the loss extremely hard, and most importantly, in complete loneliness. He cut off all previously existing contacts with mutual acquaintances with his wife, and moved away from friends and family. I hardly communicated with my colleagues. He made his way to work and back, passing the cemetery where his wife was buried, finding himself forced to pass through almost the entire city. V. also cut off contact with his son: he left for work while he was still sleeping, leaving him in the care of the nanny, and upon returning home he did not enter the house without making sure that the nanny had put his son to bed. V. motivated this behavior by caring for his son, who, in his opinion, should not have been traumatized by the expression of pain on his father’s face. In therapy, he was also practically not available for any contact, but at the same time he wanted me to relieve him of excruciating pain. V. talked a lot about his grief, but did not even look at me, despite all my attempts to pay attention to my presence and the opportunity to talk about his grief to me. A strong and courageous man, V.he never needed the care of other people, left home early, and quickly achieved great success in his profession. Admitting his vulnerability was fraught with shame and humiliation for V., and therefore he had to ignore or devalue all evidence of the presence of others in his field who wanted to take care of him. This is not an easy situation, dooming V. to chronic excruciating pain. The turning point in therapy happened suddenly; help came from the most unexpected source - from a 6-year-old son. Returning home late at night and making sure, as usual, that the light in his son’s room was off, he went into the house. I turned on the TV and began to watch the film, as usual, without delving into its content. Suddenly someone touched his shoulder, it was his son. He said: “Dad, it’s very difficult for both of us, let’s talk about mom.” V. told how they were both able to cry to each other for the first time. Thus, a 6-year-old child taught a significant life lesson to his adult father. After this event, an important resource for experiencing pain in contact with another person appeared in therapy. Speaking about psychotherapy for mental trauma, it should be noted that the lack of support in the form of appropriate chronification of the traumatic context of the field is also subject to fixation. Thus, when traumatic memories and affects are updated, ideas about the corresponding support deficit are also updated. In other words, this deficit, despite the statute of limitations of the event, still exists in the human imagination to this day. We can use this situation in therapy, making efforts to restore a person’s ability to use the field resources available to him today in order to restore the process of experiencing in the present situation. However, taking into account what has been said above about deficient patterns of perception, one should not count on a quick therapeutic effect in the treatment of chronic trauma. Resistance, which stems from the client’s lack of experience in asking for and accepting support from others, can be extremely strong and persistent, in some cases even resistant to therapy. G., a 43-year-old man, asked about difficulties in adapting to any area of ​​life that involves communicating with other people. Not married and never have been. He feels very lonely, which has caused him to suffer especially severely lately. He looks aloof, I would even say somewhat frightened, he hides his eyes almost all the time. Establishing any contact with him requires considerable effort. Over the course of six months of therapy, he came regularly, talking about his life and as if expecting nothing in return. At the same time, my own feelings for him, when trying to express them, were not noticed at all, and the desire to take care of him, which was clearly present during most of the therapy, turned out to be unclaimed. A sort of mixture of tenderness for G. (almost the same as for a small child), sadness and sadness from the stories he told, irritation and anger from feeling sometimes unnecessary in the presence of striking phenomena in therapy that indicate the opposite, pain and sympathy for G., which could not be identified in contact with him, was transformed at times into confusion and even despair. Six months later, an even more difficult period began in therapy. It seemed that everything that G. wanted to tell me had already been told, there was nothing more to talk about. At the same time, according to both, there was almost no progress in therapy; G.’s quality of life and contact remained the same. In addition, if earlier the sessions were filled with G.'s stories, now the pauses became unbearable for him. He began to express his desire to end therapy, however, he continued to come regularly and without delay. I perceived the painful sessions in the context of G.’s therapy as some kind of test to which he (naturally, unconsciously) subjected our relationship. However, I remained by his side throughout this time, continuing to support him and demonstrating that what was happening was quite natural. I informed G. that a similar situation in therapy could.