[264] and mind, which is also an expression of this one life process, and where it expresses itself in terms of participation in the universals, of knowing and acting according to norms and principles. Now if we have this doctrine of man, then we have a monistic doctrine of man. It is interesting that here we can easily see that the OLD Testament---not completely the New Testament by but certainly the Old Testament picture of man---and the Aristotelian^a picture of man---the unity---agree. I cannot go deeper into this; it is one step in the process of going back. The next step, where l again, as always, say: it doesn't yet bring us home. We are in the process of Odyssey:^b to find again what man is, is the understanding of the problem of man as an ontological problem.^c I know that the word "ontology" is like a red [flag] being waved at you, many of you, and you react as some animals do, when they see the red color. . . etc. . .  but I hope at least some of this reaction has somewhat smoothed [i.e. simmered] down since the last lectures, and I dare to use the word "ontology" again! What I mean is: What kind of being is man?---seen in terms of the question of being-itself. What is his ultimate structure? Body and soul---or body and mind---or life process and its expression--- alright! But that's only, so to speak, the description from outside. Ontology would give a description from inside. Here we HAVE already found one very important element, namely that man is that being which has universals, which can speak. But this is an isolated element. This element is connected with other, more fundamental, elements. Here we come to the most fundamental element, namely that man is finite ^dWHILE BEING