Detailansicht zu WPL-01E 🇺🇸 v7.0
Sprachversionen
Dokumentdetails: 🇺🇸 WPL-01E
Version: (Datum: )
YAML-Daten von WPL-01E
| Schlüssel | Wert |
|---|---|
| wa_id | WPL-01E |
| wb_band | WB_90E |
| title | WPL-01E: Beyond I-Thou and I-It – Introduction to the I-Usted Relationship (Ich-Sie/Ich-Er/Yo-Usted) |
| doi | 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22851450 |
| subtitle | WA Corpus - Volume WB_90E 🔗 https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4YSFP |
| publishing_targets | - (ZENODO > WG_01E) WA Corpus: Structural Dissociation Type 2 - (ZENODO > WG_02E) Beyond I-Thou and I-It - Extended Dialogical Categories Beyond Buber (I-Usted) |
| author | Thor Alexander (ORCID: 0009-0007-8347-0962, 🔗 https://osf.io/snmx5) |
| version | Version 4.1 from 2026-09-18 |
| footline | WPL-01E: I-Usted Relationship (V4.1) |
| abstract | This document introduces an extension of Martin Buber's dialogical categories by a third category: the I-Usted relationship (German Ich-Sie/Ich-Er, Spanish Yo-Usted, Russian Я-Устед, Turkish Ben-Usted). It denotes the respectful acknowledgment of a counterpart who refuses encounter—not out of freedom, but out of structural incapacity. The work demonstrates that Buber's dichotomy of I-Thou and I-It is insufficient for accompanying individuals with structural dissociation Type 2. The I-Usted relationship is philosophically grounded (Buber, Levinas, Jonas, Kierkegaard) and clinically applied (Lighthouse Strategy). The document discusses the universal validity of the category for dementia, coma, severe intellectual disability, and end-of-life care. It reflects on the ethical implications of the attitude and its linguistic translatability into various cultural contexts. The document concludes with a systematic application of the limitations to the six theses of the work. The explanations apply to both models (Type 2α and Type 2β), unless otherwise noted. |
| keywords | Structural Dissociation, Type 2, dialogical philosophy, I-Thou, I-It, I-Usted, I-Usted relationship, Ich-Er, Ich-Sie, Yo-Usted, voice of the captive, recognition without reciprocity, encounter without reciprocity, respect without reciprocity, dignity of the fragmented self, asymmetrical responsibility, infinite responsibility, care without reciprocity, faithfulness without answer, last witness, face of the Other, third dialogical category, philosophy of dialogue, basic word, distance marker, respectful distance, Martin Buber, Emmanuel Levinas, Hans Jonas, Søren Kierkegaard, Lighthouse Strategy, demand-free presence, Yenifer, Yenny, WA Corpus, WPL-01 |
| volumes | PROJECT DOI (WA CORPUS): 🔗 https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DC9EZ WA CORPUS on Structural Dissociation Type 2 - Integrative Single-Case Analysis Yenifer/Yenny: 🔗 https://osf.io/dc9ez HOMEPAGE (Volumes, deep links to DOI documents, overviews, indices): 🔗 https://korpus.thor-alexander.de/ VOLUME 01: TYPE 2 • German/Original - WB_01D: 🔗 https://osf.io/8xubp • English - WB_01E: 🔗 https://osf.io/9f2tj VOLUME 17: I-USTED • German/Original - WB_17D: 🔗 https://osf.io/z9nhu VOLUME 18: ZIS-SPIDER • German/Original - WB_18D: 🔗 https://osf.io/psf5h • Visualization - 🔗 https://zis.thor-alexander.de VOLUME 90: PUBLICATIONS • German/Original - WB_90D: 🔗 https://osf.io/syx32 • English - WB_90E: 🔗 https://osf.io/4ysfp • Español/Latino - WB_90L: 🔗 https://osf.io/9ydgv • Русский - WB_90R: 🔗 https://osf.io/nwcjm • Türkçe - WB_90T: 🔗 https://osf.io/frhts VOLUME 95: NARRATIVES • German/Original - WB_95D: 🔗 https://osf.io/8aegh |
Kapitel 1 von WPL-01E
## 1. Introduction
### 1.1 Buber's Dialogical Categories – I-Thou and I-It
Martin Buber (1878–1965), in his main work *I and Thou* (1923), formulated a philosophy of dialogue that divides the human relationship to the world into two fundamental attitudes: the basic word I-Thou and the basic word I-It.
The I-Thou relationship is the encounter with the Other as a distinctive, holistic counterpart. It is characterized by reciprocity, mutuality, and immediate presence. In it, the human being encounters the Other not as an object of observation or use, but as a subject that stands before them in its uniqueness. Buber wrote: *„Das Grundwort Ich-Du kann nur mit dem ganzen Wesen gesprochen werden.“* („The basic word I-Thou can only be spoken with one's whole being.“; Buber, 1923, p. 10).
The I-It relationship is the experience of the Other as an object. It is characterized by distance, observation, and use. In it, the Other is classified, categorized, instrumentalized. Buber emphasized that the human being lives in both the I-Thou and the I-It attitudes – and that both attitudes are necessary. The I-It relationship enables orientation and action in the world; the I-Thou relationship enables encounter and meaning.
Buber's distinction became formative for 20th-century philosophy and continues to be found in pedagogy, psychotherapy, and ethics to this day.
### 1.2 The Challenge of the Absent Thou
Yet Buber's dichotomy faces a fundamental challenge: What about those encounters in which the counterpart cannot respond? Not out of free choice, not out of conscious refusal, but out of structural incapacity – because they are suppressed, because they have no voice, because they are trapped in deep latency.
In the case of Yenifer/Yenny (structural dissociation Type 2), this challenge is everyday reality. The primary consciousness (Yenifer) is completely suppressed and cannot respond. The secondary consciousness (Yenny) refuses all encounter and blocks every therapeutic relationship. The system as a whole is not accessible to an I-Thou encounter – not because it refuses, but because its structure does not permit reciprocity.
The I-It relationship is also not an appropriate attitude. Yenifer is not an object to be observed, used, or classified. She is a captive subject – and as such, she deserves recognition, not reification – even if she cannot respond.
This introduction argues that a third dialogical category is required: the I-Usted relationship (in German: I-Sie/I-Er, Spanish: Yo-Usted). It is the attitude of respectfully acknowledging a counterpart who refuses encounter – not out of freedom, but out of structural incapacity.
### 1.3 The I-Usted Relationship as a Third Category
The I-Usted relationship is neither the encounter with a Thou (which presupposes reciprocity) nor the reification into an It (which turns the counterpart into an object). It is a third, independent attitude: recognition without reciprocity.
In the I-Usted relationship, the counterpart is recognized as a subject – they are not degraded to an object. At the same time, however, no reciprocity is expected or demanded. The relationship remains one-sided, but it is not a relationship to an object. It is the attitude of the companion who encounters a person who cannot respond – and who nonetheless recognizes them as a person.
The choice of the Spanish Usted in the international language versions is justified in detail in Chapter 8.
### 1.4 Questions of the Document
1. What characterizes the I-Usted relationship as a third dialogical category beyond Buber's I-Thou and I-It?
2. Which theoretical foundations – Buber, Levinas, Jonas, Kierkegaard – support the I-Usted relationship?
3. Why is the I-Usted relationship indispensable for accompanying people with structural dissociation Type 2?
4. How does the I-Usted relationship differ from Buber's I-Thou and I-It in the three dimensions of recognition, reciprocity, and dignity?
5. What ethical implications does the I-Usted relationship have for the therapeutic attitude?
6. How can the I-Usted relationship be translated into other linguistic and cultural contexts, and why is Usted used in the international versions?
### 1.5 Theses of the Document
1. Thesis of the necessity of a third dialogical category: Buber's dichotomy of I-Thou and I-It is incomplete. The I-Usted relationship is an independent category of recognition without reciprocity, irreducible to the others.
2. Thesis of the ethical foundation: The I-Usted relationship is grounded in Levinasian responsibility for the Other, which is not bound to reciprocity, in Jonas's principle of asymmetrical responsibility, and in Kierkegaard's faithfulness without answer.
3. Thesis of clinical relevance: The I-Usted relationship is the most plausible and ethically justifiable attitude toward a Type 2 system – a hypothesis-driven recommendation for action that requires validation through further clinical experience. It addresses Yenny as an acting agency without reifying her, and maintains the connection to Yenifer without liberating her.
4. Thesis of delineation from Buber's categories: The I-Usted relationship differs from the I-Thou relationship by the absence of reciprocity and from the I-It relationship by the recognition of the subjectivity of the counterpart.
5. Thesis of international translatability: The I-Usted relationship finds its most concise formulation in the Spanish Yo-Usted and is presented in the international language versions (English, Russian, French) as I-Usted, Я-Устед, and Je-Usted. In other languages, the choice is left to native speakers.
6. Thesis of the universal validity of the I-Usted relationship: The I-Usted relationship is not limited to accompanying people with structural dissociation Type 2. It is the appropriate ethical attitude toward any human being who cannot respond – regardless of the cause of their inability to respond. It finds application in dementia care, in accompanying people in coma, in end-of-life care, in work with people with severe multiple disabilities, and in early childhood care. The I-Usted relationship is therefore a universal category of recognition that should find application throughout medical, nursing, and disability ethics.
---
### 1.1 Buber's Dialogical Categories – I-Thou and I-It
Martin Buber (1878–1965), in his main work *I and Thou* (1923), formulated a philosophy of dialogue that divides the human relationship to the world into two fundamental attitudes: the basic word I-Thou and the basic word I-It.
The I-Thou relationship is the encounter with the Other as a distinctive, holistic counterpart. It is characterized by reciprocity, mutuality, and immediate presence. In it, the human being encounters the Other not as an object of observation or use, but as a subject that stands before them in its uniqueness. Buber wrote: *„Das Grundwort Ich-Du kann nur mit dem ganzen Wesen gesprochen werden.“* („The basic word I-Thou can only be spoken with one's whole being.“; Buber, 1923, p. 10).
The I-It relationship is the experience of the Other as an object. It is characterized by distance, observation, and use. In it, the Other is classified, categorized, instrumentalized. Buber emphasized that the human being lives in both the I-Thou and the I-It attitudes – and that both attitudes are necessary. The I-It relationship enables orientation and action in the world; the I-Thou relationship enables encounter and meaning.
Buber's distinction became formative for 20th-century philosophy and continues to be found in pedagogy, psychotherapy, and ethics to this day.
### 1.2 The Challenge of the Absent Thou
Yet Buber's dichotomy faces a fundamental challenge: What about those encounters in which the counterpart cannot respond? Not out of free choice, not out of conscious refusal, but out of structural incapacity – because they are suppressed, because they have no voice, because they are trapped in deep latency.
In the case of Yenifer/Yenny (structural dissociation Type 2), this challenge is everyday reality. The primary consciousness (Yenifer) is completely suppressed and cannot respond. The secondary consciousness (Yenny) refuses all encounter and blocks every therapeutic relationship. The system as a whole is not accessible to an I-Thou encounter – not because it refuses, but because its structure does not permit reciprocity.
The I-It relationship is also not an appropriate attitude. Yenifer is not an object to be observed, used, or classified. She is a captive subject – and as such, she deserves recognition, not reification – even if she cannot respond.
This introduction argues that a third dialogical category is required: the I-Usted relationship (in German: I-Sie/I-Er, Spanish: Yo-Usted). It is the attitude of respectfully acknowledging a counterpart who refuses encounter – not out of freedom, but out of structural incapacity.
### 1.3 The I-Usted Relationship as a Third Category
The I-Usted relationship is neither the encounter with a Thou (which presupposes reciprocity) nor the reification into an It (which turns the counterpart into an object). It is a third, independent attitude: recognition without reciprocity.
In the I-Usted relationship, the counterpart is recognized as a subject – they are not degraded to an object. At the same time, however, no reciprocity is expected or demanded. The relationship remains one-sided, but it is not a relationship to an object. It is the attitude of the companion who encounters a person who cannot respond – and who nonetheless recognizes them as a person.
The choice of the Spanish Usted in the international language versions is justified in detail in Chapter 8.
### 1.4 Questions of the Document
1. What characterizes the I-Usted relationship as a third dialogical category beyond Buber's I-Thou and I-It?
2. Which theoretical foundations – Buber, Levinas, Jonas, Kierkegaard – support the I-Usted relationship?
3. Why is the I-Usted relationship indispensable for accompanying people with structural dissociation Type 2?
4. How does the I-Usted relationship differ from Buber's I-Thou and I-It in the three dimensions of recognition, reciprocity, and dignity?
5. What ethical implications does the I-Usted relationship have for the therapeutic attitude?
6. How can the I-Usted relationship be translated into other linguistic and cultural contexts, and why is Usted used in the international versions?
### 1.5 Theses of the Document
1. Thesis of the necessity of a third dialogical category: Buber's dichotomy of I-Thou and I-It is incomplete. The I-Usted relationship is an independent category of recognition without reciprocity, irreducible to the others.
2. Thesis of the ethical foundation: The I-Usted relationship is grounded in Levinasian responsibility for the Other, which is not bound to reciprocity, in Jonas's principle of asymmetrical responsibility, and in Kierkegaard's faithfulness without answer.
3. Thesis of clinical relevance: The I-Usted relationship is the most plausible and ethically justifiable attitude toward a Type 2 system – a hypothesis-driven recommendation for action that requires validation through further clinical experience. It addresses Yenny as an acting agency without reifying her, and maintains the connection to Yenifer without liberating her.
4. Thesis of delineation from Buber's categories: The I-Usted relationship differs from the I-Thou relationship by the absence of reciprocity and from the I-It relationship by the recognition of the subjectivity of the counterpart.
5. Thesis of international translatability: The I-Usted relationship finds its most concise formulation in the Spanish Yo-Usted and is presented in the international language versions (English, Russian, French) as I-Usted, Я-Устед, and Je-Usted. In other languages, the choice is left to native speakers.
6. Thesis of the universal validity of the I-Usted relationship: The I-Usted relationship is not limited to accompanying people with structural dissociation Type 2. It is the appropriate ethical attitude toward any human being who cannot respond – regardless of the cause of their inability to respond. It finds application in dementia care, in accompanying people in coma, in end-of-life care, in work with people with severe multiple disabilities, and in early childhood care. The I-Usted relationship is therefore a universal category of recognition that should find application throughout medical, nursing, and disability ethics.
---