Those are really great filters, which I had not thought much about in that context. My gut reaction to #1 with regard to Gabor is that at the core of his perspective there is a very real de-romanticization (no idea if that's a real word) of trauma. I think there are always going to be people who grasp at labels and paste them on themselves out of a need to assemble an identity that makes them feel "special/other" (aka self-diagnosing with no professional analysis), but for most people who don't feel they "deserve" to be able to apply the word "traumatic" to life events (they haven't been subject to physical/sexual abuse, etc - you addressed this somewhat in your writing) I think Gabor's perspective is a tool for connecting with and acknowledging the pain at our core.

In my opinion, I have a hard time applying #2 to Gabor's perspective. Saying "of course you turned to (insert addiction) to deal with your pain/trauma" is, in my mind, the opposite of victim-blaming. It is a step in the process of removing the sense of shame/humiliation typically associated with addicition and recognizing it as an adaptive survival mechanism so you can move beyond the addiction itself to the root cause(s), of which the addiction is just a manifestion/symptom.

All that said, I really like the filters you use when approaching anyone's work. While I am a fanboy of Gabor, I do not believe every word out of his mouth should be placed on a pedestal. Which is pretty much how I feel about anyone whose work I admire. Dick Schwartz, founder of Internal Family Systems, of which I am a huge fan, deserves to have his work put under the same scrutiny as anyone else. And I think its important to separate the body of work they produce from their personal lives. Kinda like Tom Cruise; love his work, no interest in his personal views/life. :-)

As always, thanks for the thought provoking writing, Alex and your patience with my longwinded responses. Love and peace to you, brother.