obe, you can find meaning in anything, can’t you 
Oh great, now I have to figure out what “panpschotic” is.
Is that like a “pan-Scottish”? Like what would happen to the world is the Scots took over?
Gib, for some obscure reason, i prefer Arminius comments. I would say You may be right, and not wishing to fall into the exclusive psychic interpretations which so much occupied Gobbo’s forums, however, the distinction accorded between sanity and the supernatural, may be far less significant, than currently thought about. Anyone seriously considering a psychic course, having an unstable mind, may better beware, of the inherent dangers lurking there.It is beyond dispute, that certain patterns of occurrences, which border on paranormal, can be attested and widely read in Jung, William James, and others. Most people considering themselves sane, block any non rational occurrence to enter their awareness. Synchronous events have been widely reported, among many dealing with the supernatural. The consequence of it is usually a widely held disapproval, and a possible questioning of sanity among those, who would hold to such views.
Until the time where more definitive conclusions can be drawn, the supernatural will be delegated into the archives of musty folk literature.
“Pan-Scottish” and “panpschotic” are a little bit related. Though I didn’t mean “panpschotic”, but “panpsychotic” (read my post again, please ).
Regards.
@obe & Arminius,
So what is a pan-psychotic? “Pan” means universal or all-pervading. Pan-psychic means universal mind–as in, the mind of the universe. Pan-theism means universal god–as in, the universe is God. I can only surmise that pan-psychotic means the universe is crazy.
Although my first language is not English, I would say that the word “mind” means basically and thus mostly “spirit” / “ghost” (“Geist” is the German word for that), but “psyche” means basically and thus mostly “soul” (“Seele” is the German word for that). So “pan-psychic” means more “universal soul” than “universal mind”.
But maybe the English language has cast off many Old-English words and especially their meanings, so that nowadays “pan-psychic” may be interpretated in that way, which you prefer, Gib. But I prefer the other interpretation.
Next lesson: pan-psychotic! 
End of night shift. I have to go to bed now. What’s the time in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Gib?
Regards.
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) ?