In English,
the prefix “pan-” generally means “wide spread” or “all encompassing”.
Mind ≡ the functioning of a neural network or brain, “psyche”.
Spirit / Ghost (“Geist”) ≡ Behavior, activity, energy of.
Soul ≡ fundamental architecture, design, function, definition or purpose.
Psychotic ≡ mentally disturbed, abnormally disconnected with reality.
So “Pan-Psychotic” would mean “wide spread, all encompassingly disconnected with reality” ≡ BBS.
BBS ≡ “Broken Brain Syndrome”.
Man spoke to the Universe and said, “I am Me.” The Universe replied, “Then I have no obligation to you.”
Should the Universe–given this personification–have any obligation toward Man?
I don’t think pan-psychotic means the Universe is crazy–I think it means that man is universally delusional. The Universe really doesn’t give a damn.
Was Nietzsche a psychic? I don’t think so, if a psychic uses ESP to reach her/his conclusions. Was he a philosopher for the world? Again, I don’t think so–unless–unless–his words can be universally defined. But can they be? Have they ever been?
One thing, though, cannot be denied.
He had a magnificent mustache!
Suit yourself. In English, the word “psyche” means “mind”. And I personally wouldn’t distinguish between mind and soul–true, they do connote different notions, but as far as their referents are concerned, I think they refer to the same object.
What’s the time here? It’s 8:05 AM. But I’ll bet it’s hours after you last posted, so that doesn’t answer your question. I’d look at the timestamp on your post and tell you it was 5:49 AM when you posted, but judging by the timestamp on my own posts (5:25 AM for my most recent one) I can tell you that’s inaccurate. From what I understand, ILP is a British website, so that’s probably the timestamp of the server.
Where do you live anyway?
Not sure, but given that we are a part of the universe, I’d say the universe has an obligation towards man insofar as man feels he has an obligation towards himself.
(interesting–if man is conscious, and man is a part of the universe, that means pan-psychism is true ipso facto).
Just to note: “psychic” in the term “pan-psychic” has nothing to do with ESP. Given that pan-psychism literally means the belief that the universe is conscious, and given that pan-theism literally means the belief that the universe is God, I’d say that “pan” is supposed to refer to the universe itself (which is different from what the term “universal” is supposed to denote) and “psychic” is supposed to refer to consciousness (or the mind).
I carry the same logic over for the term “pan-psychotic”–i.e. that it means “insane universe,” but as it’s a new term, I guess people can define it however they want. However, any man who believes in pan-psychotism probably is insane and you could probably very well call him “universally delusional.” 
Indeed! When will we ever see another philosopher with a mustache quite as refined?
Well, if we want to parallel panpsychism, panpsychosis must mean that psychosis is a pre-existing property of the universe.
(panpsychism = mind is a property of the universe or all things in the universe)
A Panpsychotic would be someone who holds this position about psychosis as a fundamental property of substance in the universe.
If panpsychosis is supposed to mirror panpsychism, then reality just is, in some fashion, psychotic. It’s not a defect, disconnect, or option but an inevitable feature.
Sounds like Quantum Physics.
So Quantum Mechanics is bullshit?
I jest. I hope to understand the fuss about QM at some point, but I’m still getting a hold of the basics first.
In German, it is a little bit different:
[size=104]“Pan”[/size] = “allumfassend” (“all encompassing”), “überall verbreitet”, “weit verbreitet” (“wide spreaded”), “whole”, “entire”, “complete”, “full” etc…
[size=104]“Geist”[/size] = “mind”, “conscience”, “consciousness”, “awareness”, “esprit”, “spirit”, “génie”, “intelligence”, "intellect, “apprehension”, “brain”, “sense” etc…
[size=104]“Seele”[/size] = “soul”, “pysche”, and in some sense: “mind” (=> “Geist”).
So if I retranslate, I get:
[size=104]“Mind”[/size] = “Geist”, so: very much more than “Psyche”.
[size=104]“Spirit”[/size] = “Geist”, so: very much more than “Psyche”.
[size=104]“Ghost”[/size] = “Geist”, so: very much more than “Psyche”.
[size=104]“Soul”[/size] = “Seele”, “Psyche”.
Not “mentally” (at least not necessarily), but of course psychically.
Yes, but - of course - psychically disconnected with reality.
It is possible to be psychically disconnected with reality and nevertheless be mentally connected with reality. When psychiatrists and psychotherapists speak about " psychosis", “psychotic”, and so on, the mind is included, and when they speak about “neurosis”, “neurotic”, and so on, the mind is not or less included. I know that they think so, but I think that they are probably wrong because a psychotic is not necessarily disconnected with reality (think of the borderline psychotic and the borderline syndrome).
Unfortunately!
Maybe in English - unfortunately -, but not in other languages, especially in German. In German there is a possibility to say - and thus: to think too - it in BOTH meanings. And that is an advantage, a benefit, a gain, a plus, thus a chance to choose is given by the language, so one can speak and think more differently. (By the way: there are two languages in history which are made for thinking: Ancient Greek and German.)
So if we have a look on Nietzsche’s biography again, we may add his “psychography” and his “mindography” and put them into his five stages:
(1) childhood and youth, (A) no psychic symptoms of disease, (I) no mental symptoms of disease,
(2) from his youth till his „terminated contact“ with Wagner, (B) little pyschic symptoms of disease, (II) no mental symptoms of disease,
(3) from his „terminated contact“ with Wagner till his „Zarathustra“, (C) psychic symptoms of disease, (III) little mental symptoms of disease,
(4) from his „Zarathustra“ till his collapse, (D) much psychic symptoms of disease, (IV) mental symptoms of disease,
(5) from his collapse till his death, (E) very much psychic symptoms of disease, (V) much mental symptoms of disease.
I think, Nietzsche was able to put all his physical / bodily pain, his bodily symptoms as semiotic signs into linguistic and philosophic terms, axioms, theorems etc., and when he later tried to do the same with his psychic symptoms he could not do it in the same way, and when he at last tried to do the same with his mental symptoms he collapsed because mental symptoms as signs are too much like linguistic and philosphical signs.
Those differences in word usage is why we need Definitional Logic. Ancient Hebrew was designed to be extremely logical such that every letter had its own concept and a word was a combination of the concepts represented by the letters. To form a word was to “cast a spelling” in the mind, which is how we eventually got the idea of “casting spells”. But their logic was based upon their premises/axioms. So today, Ancient Hebrew is useless for Science because the axioms in Hebrew are primarily pathos-spiritual rather than logos-material. Latin was largely logic based also, but led to Italian, Spanish, and French which are very pathos based, “romance languages”.
Language and thinking tend to affect each other. So is German Science what it is because of the language, or is the language the way it is because of the thinking? And did Science form the thinking or did the thinking form Science into the particular form that it took. It could have taken a different form and yielded the same results. Measuring is what made Science succeed and that could have been from any language as long as it included detailed math.
It is hard for me to separate “psyche” from “mind”. And “soul” doesn’t even come into the picture, for me.
The relationship between language and thinking is obvious, they affect each other. What effects the most, is an interesting question, but it is very difficult to answer.
Yes.
Yes, and that’s not only, but very much because of the English language, which is your first language.
I am Texan, English is my second language.
The phonetics of a “soul” in English relates to the same for “sole” (as in the sole of a shoe) in English and means conceptually the same thing; “that upon which the body is built”. Scriptures often conflate “spirit” and “soul” because they seldom had a distinction between a concept (soul) and a behavior (spirit).
I live in Germany. The timestamp for your post shows “4:27 pm”. So you are 8 hours “back”.
So you are - chronologically - as far from me as the Japanese are. 
And the Japanese are - chronologically - as far from you as I am.
Wow! ______________________
Yeah, sure, German is better than English–if you say so–but what does it mean to say that a language is made for thinking? What would a language not made for thinking be like?
Yep, second to Vancouver, we’re the last to get the Sun each day.
But Texan is not a language, but a dialect of a language, and that language is - of course - the English language. Or is it by now and again the Spanish language (catchword: immigration) ?
I found this Exchange odd. Gib makes it clear that they mean the same thing to him, despite the Words meaning different things in his language, English. This seems to be used as possible evidence one cannot Think something, in particular, in English, which is a poorer language than German for thinking, supposedly. But you can Think of those two Words as referring to different things in English. For this reason atheists will often not use ‘soul’, for example, or use it as a no longer use of some now outmoded dualism. Whereas they will use mind, even though they do not Think this raises the dualism issue.
Psyche referred to earlier in the same post is a very complicated Word in English, because it came out of the myths, but then got used in new ways by, well, Germans, amongst others, and so the Word can mean different things in different contexts (contexts including different users). Sometimes it is used as a fancy ass way of saying mind. Often not.
Differences in languages do affect how one Thinks, especially given that one gets the Culture at the same time one gets the language, and the Culture sets tendencies and limits and biases. English has Germanic and Latin roots, with a lot of Greek thrown in on the side, hence a huge range of registers and adjectives, at least compared to other languages that are more singular in their roots.
One could even argue that the difference in grammar between English and German leads to tendencies in thinking…Different thoughts…
but not more in one.
Therefore it is a plus, if the meanings of words are stretchable and refer to the language they hisorically belong to. Too many influences by foreign languages are probably advantaged when it comes to the so called “lingua franca”, but in other cases they are more disadvantaged.
Yes. English has been more and more a “lingua-franca”-language since England became an empire. That was the price. The Englishmen lost parts of their language and language tradition and won or gained a lot of vocables from foreign languages. They lost cultue and won civilisation, especially in an economical and political way. A “lingua franca” (Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Latin, Modern English) has always been very useful for international economy and of course other international affairs.
That’s right. But not only “English has Germanic and Latin roots, with a lot of Greek thrown in on the side”, other Germanic languages as well. English is as well a Germanic language as the other Germanic languages, but these have less foreign influences than English has. And that’s the point.
If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc…
@ James S Saint
At that time Ancient Hebrew had an advantage over the neighbouring languages, but when the Greek, who were the first ones with vowels, put the vowels into their alphabet, it was like a “language revolution” because the Greek language got not only a different quantity, but also and very especially a different quality. This different quality gave the Greek language a Level, which never before had been reached.
And after that the Greeks stopped the borrowing of lexemes from other languages and kept their language clean. Well done, Greeks.
I don’t Think this is the case. 1) having more options allows for more nuanced Communication in general. 2) Having more influences puts on the table cultural biases and more checking must be done, less assumptions can be made. The way the language creates a lens is more complicated and two fluent native speakers still must carefully check things. Illusions of 1) good Communication and 2) lack of cultural bias are harder to come by.
It didn’t lose parts, it gained. It has a larger vocabulary than German. And you’ll have to demonstrate somehow why it does not work for, say, philosophy, as well as other languages.
That’s right.
[/quote]
So here I was saying different thoughts but not more in one language than Another and it seems you are agreeing.
Obviously you haven’t been to Texas. 
When it comes to to strengthen a culture communication is not the most important thing of the language, but Information is the most important Thing of the language, of sciencde etc… Communication is more (but not most) important when it comes to civilisation in order to get the Information, which is neverthelless most important. Elsewise communication is talk, only talk. … Talk, talk, talk …
It did lose parts. Of course. Very much. Look into your dictionary! And I also said: it gained (cp. vocabulary). Though not the quantity, but the quality is important when it comes to culture. When it comes to civilisation - okay -, it seems to be the reverse -, but civilisation is not what a culture startes with. A culture startes as culture ( ). That what we nowadays call civilisation is perhaps in later or even latest times of a culture more important. A civilisation is not a “motor” for a rising development, but for the organisation of a declining development, of the decadent times.
Amongst others, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler argued in a very similar way as I do.
I have alraedy demonstrated, e.g. here, and in this post I there is also demonstrated why it does not work.
If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or a high frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or a low frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc…
Each language has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its „laws“, its rules, its grammar and so on. But language in general has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its „laws“, its rules, its grammar and so on - just like - for example - mathematics and philosophy. You can hardly explain e.g. mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, „laws“, rules, grammar by using e.g. physics or chemistry; and you can also hardly explain mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, „laws“, rules, grammar by using e.g. psychology or sociology. But you can do it very well, very effectively, very successfully by using mathematics or linguistics.
So you can hardly explain what thoughts or words about by using psychology or sociology.
Nietzsche used thoughts and words in a regular way, although he was “psychically” ill. According to the English language, which can not seperate psyche from mind, this would not be possible ( 
). Though it is possible ( 
). I can guarantee you.
_______________________| Geist |
______________| Psyche ____|
_______| Biological Body ______|
| Anorganic Things ___________|
Above you see four layers as levels. Aristoteles thought of a fifth one, which he called “Hyle”. However. Except the Anorganic Things, each of that levels is relatively free and supported by the level / levels below - according to the positions. The more a level is up the more it is free, but no level is generally free, but relatively free. And the more a level is up the more it depends on the level / levels below. So Anorganic Things “stem” Biological Body, Psyche, and Geist (mind etc.). The Biological Body is more relaively free than the Anorganic Things, the Psyche is more relatively free than the Biological Body, and the Geist is more relatively free than the Psyche. When it comes to that what the levels are by theirselves, they do not depend on on any other level - exception: Anorganic Things, which depend on no level anyway.
So for example the Geist, which means the most relatively free level, does not depend on the other levels when it comes to that what the Geist is by itself.
That is one of the reasons why one can be mentally healthy and pschically ill, but not menatlly ill and psychically healthy. Nietzsche has shown how he was able to be mentally healthy and pschically ill even in very extreme situations. He had the best thoughts when he was ill. 
…