The Age of (the Algorithmic) Aquarius: How AI Meets Our Esoteric Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
American Religion 5:1 138Around the time when Jacob Boss approached us with the invitation to contribute to this American Religion roundtable on AI and algorithms, I (Sharday Mosurinjohn) had just been introduced to the esoteric algorithm called "Human Design" 1 by a friend in the psychedelic space, which is where the bulk of my research now takes place. 2 As I delved deeper into the world of psychonauts and psychedelic scientists, I discovered a vibrant cauldron, bubbling with what some might dismiss as a "New Age soup" of divinatory methods.3 Tarot, I Ching, astrology: these were not simply mystical games, but thoughtful tools presented as "personal energetic algorithms." 4 When we say algorithm, we are referring to a systematic process used in problem-solving.Human Design combines these esoteric technologies with others like the chakra system and more basic frameworks like individuality vs. collectivity, in what seems to be a general-purpose algorithm, the way ChatGPT is a general-purpose Natural Language Processing model as opposed to a more purpose-built chatbot like wysa or Casper's Insomnubot 3000.We have previously explored how users often ascribe a metaphysical authority to even these purpose-built chatbots, 5 and in the meantime have been learning how to build systems like these ourselves.Amidst this confluence of experiences, invitations, 1 Human Design is a system of personality analysis that combines astrology, the I Ching, Kabbalah, Hindu-Brahma chakra model, and quantum physics.It was created by Ra Uru Hu (born Robert Allan Krakower), who claimed to have received the system through a mystical experience in 1987.Human Design posits that you can categorize people into specific types (Manifestors, Generators, Projectors, and Reflectors) based on a variety of factors, such as their birth data and the positioning of celestial bodies at that time. 2 Here we use esoteric "in the popular sense of the word," where it tends to be used as a near synonym of "New Age", because we are precisely talking about a vague and general sense of curiosity about a beyond-what-is-known, rather than the technical sense of the term referring "to a cluster of specific historical traditions which become clearly perceptible in connection with the revival of hermeticism in the late 15th century."Wouter Hanegraaff, "New Age Religion and Secularization," Numen 47, no. 3 (2000): 293. 3 The New Age's soupiness is a popular caricature-a metaphor of fluid jumble-of what historian of Western esotericism Wouter Hanegraaff has identified as "the crucial characteristic of New Age religion . . .a complex of spiritualities which are no longer embedded in any religion."Whereas "all spiritualities from the past" were embedded in religions, New Age is embedded "directly in secular culture itself.All manifestations of New Age religion, without exception, are based upon . . .an 'individual manipulation of existing symbolic systems.'"Hanegraaff, "New Age Religion and Secularization," 303. 4 "What is Human Design," Thriving By Design, https://www.thrivingbydesign.com/about/what-is-human-design. 5
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".