Mood Disorders: Solution States


In my philanthropic work with persons with mood disorders I have come to see a structure to mood.  Mood is affected by how we react to the stress of a problem and this puts us into a solution state.  People have a range of mood states that extend from the suicidal (nullity), stable (singularity) and psychotic (plurality).  Stress pushes us either upward or downward from a singular state.  This is not a linear transition, but an exponential Lorentz transformation that ultimately forms a bell curve (if you give this diagram another half).  Consequently, you have unipolar and bipolar individuals who experience a wider range of moods than the majority.

I have been doing considerable research and experiment regarding psychiatric classifications over the past three years.  In particular, bipolar affective disorder an unipolar affective disorder and have reached the following conclusions:

  • psychiatric states are dependent upon how an individual reacts to stress when encountering a problem
  • a non-polar individual encounters multiple solutions (stable), which I call singularity
  • a unipolar individual encounters zero solutions (suicide), which I call nullity, or one solution (stable), which I call singularity
  • a bipolar individual encounters either zero solutions (suicide), which I call nullity, one solution (stable), which I call a singularity, or infinite solutions (mania), which I call a plurality

Both unipolar and bipolar individuals enter nullity states, singularity states  and plurality states due to avoidance of a Maslovian need, a complex.

Neither medication, hospitalization, incarceration nor electrocution (ECT) are the solutions to a complex.

Solving a complex and consequently the nullity, singularity or plurality requires concerted peer support, exercise, nutrition and sleep at state onset until the complex is confronted by the individual and resolved.  Upon resolution, a normal emotional range is restored.

If you read the work of Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D. you will discover the “spirituality” you seek, the “good” you seek, is in the right hemisphere of your brain. The left hemisphere of your brain is discrete processing. The right hemisphere of your brain is concrete processing.

In fact, in my work with people with mental health problems (the word “issues” is bullshit) I find that unipolar (depression) and bipolar (manic-depressive) people appear to be either severely left brain dominant in the case of unipolarity or alternating between left and right brain dominance in the case of bipolarity. There is no physical or chemical evidence of any difference between a “stable” person, a unipolar person and a bipolar person. Stress simply pushes mental dominance to the right or left hemisphere.



With this video I announce a change in my interests and my new blog.


Please visit me at

The Plurality is Near


I decided to take a leap.

There is an institute in the United States started based on the writings of futurist Ray Kurzweil regarding the advent of computer intelligence called The Singularity is Near.

The institute is called “The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence“.

Here is The Transcendent Man:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Transcendent Man“, posted with vodpod

I am going to advocate that as we approach computer singularity, we are also approaching human plurality.

More and more people are creating personal internet identities until every human being on earth will be online.

I call this human population threshold “The Plurality”.

The Plurality is Near.

Think about the implications.

I have incorporated “The Plurality Institute for Natural Perception”.

I will be setting up the website soon.

All it means is everyone online and thinking for themselves.

We will work to advance preparation for the impending plurality.

Novation Divergence

When we reach a plurality two things happen:

  1. The current product/service begins its life cycle descent–denovation
  2. A new product/service begins its life cycle ascent–new innovation

The interesting aspect of this is the innovator and the denovator at the divergence are not necessarily the same individual.

Let’s look at the plot:

Here you can see the divergence. This is simply a divergence of the frame of reference not of the observer.

Interesting, this has me thinking about OODA Loops. It also has me thinking about Judo.

Sorry, Seth, There Ain’t No “Dip”

Seth Godin in his book, The Dip, gives good advice about quitting and sticking. However, unintentionally he creates a myth that there is a deviation in the power curve toward the cost benefit singularity. Bluntly, there ain’t. Once you commit yourself to the swing you will have to follow through whether you hit the ball or do not. The question to be asked before you start: once you pass through the singularity, will you have enough resources to push you all the way to pluralarity (call it ubiquity or commoditization). If you cannot make a successful projection to that accomplishment, you are going to take a dive not a dip.

A cost-benefit singularity (that’s the cost benefit to the customer) is a black hole, either you enter it or you don’t. As in baseball, you need a smooth power curve as you lead in, contact and a smooth power curve as you follow through. And don’t forget a smooth power curve as you lead into your run to the base, contact and a smooth power curve as you follow through.

A complete life cycle.

No Dip. If you take one, its bad physics and you’ll hurt yourself.

More about the physics here.

Danger or Pluralarity?

Thinking about pluralities I was motivated to dig out and dust off my copy of Nicholas G. Carr’s book, Does IT Matter?: Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage. In this piece of pulp Nicholas droned on about the commoditization of hardware and software and the end of the IT industry.

What Nicholas was witnessing in 2003 was the plurality of one generation of hardware and software. Everybody had an office suite and enterprise software suite.  And rightly, they were no longer providing a competitive advantage. What Nicholas was experiencing was a complete lack of imagination with regard to the opportunities the pluralarity presented: the next generation of innovation leading to the next singularity.

In hind sight it was funny how Nicholas shook everybody up, but I didn’t find myself looking for a new career, I found myself looking for innovation and in many respects we found it in Open Source and Web 2.0 Social Software.

I have also found that Relational Database technology is reaching plurality and its limitations are becoming more pronounced as application developers test its limits. It simply does not have the flexibility we need. I’ve seen the future in the Associative Model of Data and have found it fits the Zachman Framework better than current technologies. The need is growing and this architecture fits it.

What Nicholas and all of us should have still been reading was this book:

Peter is still the authority when it comes to experience based instruction.

Singularity, Pluralarity and Lorentz Transformation

Working with Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping point, Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity and the Pareto Principle lead me to begin thinking about a pattern that presented itself. In an earlier post here and here I discussed how there had been many Singularities in history. It also lead me to talk about Pluralarites. Then it struck me there is an oscillation between Singularity and Plurality, giving us the Singularity Pluralarity Plot above. And the implications are interesting.

Any innovation follows the Singularity Pluralarity Plot as a complete life cycle. Kurzweil’s singularity will be no exception. The first working AI will be the domain of specialists it will not be unleashed uncontrolled on humanity and it will have been accomplished after several incremental developments that will leave humanity more than prepared for it. The AI will then have to be molded into compatibility to a variety of purposes. After that it will have to be iterated until it is reliable. Once it is reliable then the true singularity happens: the cost benefit ratio is achieved and AI becomes accessible to the general public. The next step is availability on the global market. Finally, AI will have to be always on and pluralarity is achieved. AI will be ubiquitous and the next innovation will take place. The commoditized original AI will begin its descent and a new innovation in AI or a completely new technology will take its place and begin its ascent.

There will be social upheaval, but I don’t think it will be as dramatic or as immediate as some think.  The anthropomorphization of AI will fade and it will just be considered another tool.

The first thing that occurred to me is that as there is a positive and negative infinity there is also a positive and negative zero. Whether the zero is positive or negative is determined by whether you approach it from positive values or negative values. The second thing that occurred to me is that a pluralarity to singularity transition is divisive while a pluralarity to singularity transition is multiplicative. The third thing that occurred to me is that it is possible to have a positive to negative transition. For example you could follow a positive singularity to positive pluralarity curve with a negative pluralarity to negative singularity curve which would ascend like a staircase. The fourth thing that became obvious is that on an exponential curve the Pareto Principle applies at both ends. It’s like applying Lorentz transformations. Fifth, I am currently reading Peter Drucker’s Innovation and Entrepreneurship and have discovered that seizing opportunity, Entrepreneurship, requires recognizing whether you are approaching a Singularity or a Pluralarity while creating opportunity, Innovation, is making a Singularity or Pluralarity. The final thought that occurred to me is what are the implications of this knowledge on network design, physics, chemistry, biology, databases, complexity, simplicity, organization, history, anthropology, evolution, commoditization? I’ll leave it there.