384( ALBERT S. MORACZEWSKI 



It is clear that the psychologist and the ontologist do not 

 mean the same thing when, they employ the words " person " 

 and " personality." The psychologist, on the one hand, looks 

 for thought, emotion and habit patterns which lead to a con- 

 sistent and predictable behavior. These for him constitute the 

 " psychological person." The ontologist, on the other hand, 

 perceives the ontological oneness, even the uniqueness, of an 

 existing reality which remains unchanged ontologically through- 

 out the constant physical and psychological variations. This 

 existential reality, the ontological person, under certain con- 

 ditions is capable of manifesting itself differently, not because 

 of any radical change in its being, but because of modifications 

 in its bodily or mental life. The " person " ontologically under- 

 stood is the subject in which the changes occur. It remains 

 identically itself throughout aberrations of mind and body. 

 The ontological person, therefore, is the fundamental reality 

 which originates with conception (or shortly thereafter) and 

 remains unchanged until death. Obviously the behavioral 

 changes associated with mental illness occur in the ontological 

 person, but they are changes oj the psychological person. 

 Hence, a schizophrenic is one being, one rational, existent being, 

 manifesting more than one emotional and behavioral pattern. 



The ontological person is an autonomous totality composed 

 of numerous interdependent functional parts. All the parts live 

 by the same life, the unique life of the person, and yet each 

 part has its distinctive vital function. Certain functional parts 

 are so thoroughly dependent upon others that the distinctive- 

 ness of specific functions and parts is not infrequently called 

 into question. 



One important problem much discussed today and in the 

 past concerns the relation of the mind to the brain. Is the 

 mind, as some insist, nothing more than the brain in its func- 

 tional capacity.f^ If so, is an injured brain the same as an 

 injured mind.f^ Or is the mind a reality distinct from the brain.? 

 If so, how do they interact in normal thought, and where is 

 the failure causing mental disease.? These and other related 



