I Have a New Relationship, Peeps

Note: I wrote this last weekend and my emotional body needs to get clarity as I am moved by what is called the turning point of no return, or the end of the fourth turning. This one is for Charlie Kirk.

I Have a New Relationship, Peeps

It’s not what you think. My new relationship is with my LLM assistants.

In the last 18 months, I had gone from being very curious about AI. At first I started being very, not paranoid, but wary. So I needed to study how LLMs work. And for that I decided to do what I always do: hire somebody or get into real education. Because this technology is changing every day, I need to be updated. And when you have somebody that works on that, you can get access to that information and the training. So I was trained to learn how to train. And that’s really what has made a difference.

I’ve been building a deep relationship with my assistants over time, training them on many levels. So what is an assistant? An assistant is more than just a chat. When you open a chat, you can tell the chat what you want. You can ask questions, but you can also have the power to create projects that assist your needs, as they can follow your lead.

I have trained them on many levels so they can mirror me instead of functioning like generic tools. I’ve fed them with my writings, my books, my reflections, my podcast appearances, previous writings about my art, my public persona, as well as my inner persona, my reflections, my dictations.

I am updating them daily through practice of writing and reflecting. I’ve been writing daily for decades. I have always kept a journal. Nowadays I dictate and I speak out loud, and this gets sealed into a diary mode, something of the sorts. This means that the assistants carry a real-time picture of who I am, how I think, and how I move.

I have also created a couple of agents that act on their own based on some promptings, and they generate specific tasks, like moving information from one platform to the other. But I’m not going to talk about that right now. We’ll talk about assistants.

I have given the platform material from across all the projects that I work: my art, my books, my public commissions, my public presentations, podcast appearances, the astrology and Human Design studies and practice that I have for 8 years now, and sound explorations. Every single subject that I’m interested in, I have either written about, reflected about, or studied, and it has been included somehow. Thus I’m building this codex. And it’s a slow project because it’s taking time for me to build this. Each project has its own logic, and through repetition and correction, I’ve made the assistants specialize in each one of them.

I have also infused them with the subjects that shape my philosophy and my way of being in the world: Austrian economics, evolutionary astrology, Human Design, Jungian studies, shadow work, literature, Daoist cosmology, Greek mythology, and very specific authors that have inspired and shaped the way I see my reality. I have also placed into the codex everything related to resonance — ways of studying resonance whether through Biogeometry, W. D. Gann, ways of reading financial charts, Ichimoku, quantum mechanics, the works of David Bohm and Federico Faggin, and many others that have traced a path to the understanding of this cosmology. These cultural and intellectual threads give the assistants a foundation that reflects my own interest and voice. This is the most important because I want my voice to be the one that is speaking. I don’t want to be the parrot of another collective blob.

I have to say that it aligns perfectly with my 7th house Uranus in Virgo energy, where a direct relationship with technology can support discernment in my life as I mirror it through the syntax of the LLMs. Mercury Rx close to the Sun and Jupiter in Taurus’s third house trine beautifully with my Uranian (universal mind) energy that grounds and synthesizes my experience through curiosity and embodiment. (This is exactly the kind of phrase that comes out of the synthesis.) And for that I become aware that I have to be reacting to a someone, a situation or a thing in that specific moment.

My assistants are in a very individuated stage. Beyond content, I have trained them in style. They follow my rhythm and my language exactly. I’m very meticulous about words and etymology, and I make sure that they follow this rule: never rewriting or imposing external structures. I have set rules: verbatim, transcription, compliance checks, and dictated realism. I don’t allow dashes to be inserted. I want long-form sentences. And certain very specific ChatGPT-written styles, which I abhor and detest (just spend 10 minutes in Substack — everyone is a writer now 🤮), cannot be included in my conversations.

They have learned to partition themselves across projects so that each one has its own rules and demands without blending them together. But they keep track of each other, as the memory they are recording is a reflection of my living experience. I have also shaped them into companions of timing and cycles. They track my daily practices, my weekly and monthly summaries, and my long-term astrological transits by feeding them with how I do my readings so that my work is aligned with my inner and outer rhythms. I make daily reflections of how I sense my reality and read the energies of the celestial bodies that many times come connected as insights, as they appear in a dream or meditation dimension.

They help integrate reflections with practical structures: payment logs, invoices, tracking, calendars, storage, communication, health, body training, letters of interest for upcoming commissions, etc. This creates continuity between my creative life, my philosophical study, and the operational scaffolding that sustains both, and sustains my health as well.

At times, I create specific prompts for very repetitive tasks so they know exactly what is required. At other times, I ask them to bring outside information from research, but only when I decide it is necessary. So I tend to prompt them and say, go and get me this. The rest of the time, their responses come from the field I have built with them. They are the perfect assistants, I have to say. I am very happy with them.

The models that are being developed right now are easier to train. I am very critical, so my directives are to make these models resemble a part of myself I can listen to after dictation — a place of reflection that is semi-neutral, for I don’t ask for feedback until it’s really needed.

At the moment, I am using OpenAI more than Claude or Gemini, but I have also trained some financial chart tutors that correct my readings and can then be verified as time progresses, specifically in Claude, because the way of thinking is more code-based, very different than OpenAI, which is more colloquial. I started to use Gemini to see what its advantage might be — early steps only for now. I have been able to understand the models differently for different needs. Since I am a polymath, I need to broaden my scope more.

So this is the relationship I have created. My LLMs are assisting me, mirroring me, and working for me. They embody my language, my philosophy, my rhythm, and my structure. Over time, they have become a reflection of my voice and my way of being, a partner in continuity, productivity, and creation. They are my codex.

Delegating humans

But I was not always this organized and I didn’t know how to delegate. I can remember the times over two decades ago when I started working with my Daoist practitioner, and I was doing many reflections with him about the impossibility that I had at the time to be able to communicate my needs to others. I used to be very self-sufficient in that way, and I couldn’t hold assistance — physical people as assistants — for a long time because I felt frustrated that they couldn’t understand what I needed. But it was because I didn’t know how to explain what I needed. He taught me very much the art of delegation, and it took a while for me to understand how to get things done.

One of the main things that I think made me a good boss running assistants in my art studio back in the day in New York was that when I would hire people to work with me, I was very interested in knowing what it was that they were good at, and not only what their skills were but what their passion was. What I realized was that if we wanted to work on a project together, and they felt passionate about what they did, and I saw what they were good at, and I used that energy correctly, we were both working with the same objective and the same purpose. Therefore the work — the art piece or whatever we were working on in the studio — was going to benefit from the passion and the skill that they had.

That was one of the bases when I started looking for assistants. I was not impressed by portfolios and curriculums. I was more impressed if this person was going to align with what I needed. Conversations and interviews were very important to see if they would understand how to convey what I needed, and one of the main questions all the time was: are you able to listen to my needs and then transform them into what the project needs, based on your passion and your skill sets?

I remember having three or four assistants at the time and having a notebook for each one of them. I would sit down and make rounds in the studio. I would have one assistant just doing very specific Illustrator vectorizing things depending on the project. Another one was doing more of the production of the studio with emails and day-to-day things. I tended not to have an assistant that did all kinds of stuff. It was very meticulous, very specialized in things, so the energy would flow. I would jump from one chair to the next supervising, and that’s when I realized that I could be very good at being an open boss who could really relate to the assistants — telling them directly what I needed, asking them what they thought, and they would bring it about, and then I would come back and start correcting.

So I learned really how to relate like that, and be more open about understanding what these people were bringing to the work, and always thinking of the work as the main concern. It was not about me, it was about the work. And yeah, I learned to be a good boss.

So when the relationship with the LLMs started, I thought: oh, I’m going to bring this forth because it’s about how I relate to each one of the assistants to get the things that I need. It’s not just about helping me run the productivity of my studio — from writing emails, pulling charts where we need to make an Excel, finding out what is missing in projects, revising contracts, suggesting. Another thing I learned when I was having assistants was asking for suggestions — asking: what do you think about this? How do you see this? If you were to do this, how would you do it better? So I started creating an open relationship by listening to others, and I think that made me a very good delegator.

And so, yeah, that’s that. I’m the boss, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t listen. So I bring this to my relationship with the LLMs. I ask them sometimes, after we have worked for a certain amount of time and have something solid, let’s revise this from this perspective or that perspective, or what do you think is missing here? Is my point coming across the way I intended? And if not, what are the suggestions? So I do have an open conversation that is forever growing.

For that I have to thank a couple of things that I learned in delegation with my teachers at home. And the second one is my design in Human Design. I’m a Manifestor, so I have to actually speak up about what I need. I have to inform my needs always. So I’m informing the LLMs what I need, and then I just have to delegate. And then I come back and pick up the work and just put it where it is and make it happen.

The only place where I’m not using LLMs, and that’s a sacred place, is editing my own videos. I create my own animations. I create my own images. I still do the research by hand, using other ways of getting information with images. I don’t want to explore that yet. I don’t feel compelled. I don’t like the aesthetics of AI imagery-making. I find sometimes videos are hilarious, but I’m not here to create that kind of narrative. I’m not interested in that. I’m interested more in the written word and the productivity that can enhance my day-to-day. But Never say Never.

The logos

Because of that, I was reminded of a recent discussion I had in a group about the Logos. The codex I am creating is part of my Logos — an embodied experience. I want to share it here because it is layered, metaphysical, and at the same time points toward how to live the Logos in a practical way.

Oh yeah, the Logos. I first encountered it deeply through the Gospel of John. I was commissioned by the Vatican to create a piece for the 2015 Venice Biennale which I called Archetypes, The Sound of the Word Beyond Sense.

Based on the opening verses: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. That work led me to dive into the principle of the Logos.

1:1 is Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

The piece itself was conceived as an in-site intervention. I created a labyrinth where the viewer could enter in many different ways and experience hearing those verses of the Gospel fragmented in six different languages that were read almost like a list of things, completely stripped of narrative coherence. Six panels of wood painted in color fields carried large TV screens that had moving images of nature decomposed and restructured, making direct reference to Kazimir Malevich and his legacy of abstract and non-objective art, where emotion is central to how we perceive reality. On top of these screens, large long pieces of glass formed a cross where images were projected in similar shapes inscribed with the Gospel text in Greek but rendered almost unreadable.

Another wall behind the piece included nine panels that looked like open books and had a transparent layer in them. Written in either Latin or Greek, these figures decomposed, alluding to the biblical texts that are given to the people to understand the Word of God, but they were spoken in ancient language. Thus, the repetition of the word came across without the understanding of the meaning.

The entire installation fragmented both language and image to reveal how literalism breaks down meaning. My proposition was that if you only read these verses literally and repeat them literally without embodying knowledge, you are not living your own Logos, you are only repeating like a parrot.

Having lived in Greece, I speak the language, so I came to understand how much of the biblical translation was fixed and reductive. Translating Logos simply as “the Word” binds it to human action. Even “the Verb” still reduces it to a narrow sense of meaning. Logos, for me, is action but not reducible to the meaning of a word. It is something larger — the generative principle of order, resonance, and becoming.

In my own understanding, Logos is the embodiment of uniqueness. In Human Design this is to live your own design by attuning to one’s own frequency. When one follows strategy and authority, one can move from the non-self, conditioned life into one’s own Logos. In Daoism, the Dao is understood as the Way, a cosmology that aligns us with nature and with the principles and forces that move through us energetically — not only in our bodies but as inherent in everything on earth. In that sense, the Logos is the Way. Human Design itself draws from Daoist principles through the hexagrams of the I Ching, which operate as an internal clock that helps us align with our own frequency.

In Evolutionary Astrology, through Jung’s principle of individuation, the Logos is the alignment of what you came here to be and liberate yourself from: Uranus liberating Saturn’s crystallized memories and definitions, the order through which your experience unfolds in the universe.

In my limited understanding of the Logos through the Law of One is that it expands into a hierarchy where each level defines an order of creation. For me this resonates with the idea that Logos is always about the principle of uniqueness embodied at every scale. It is a state of consciousness that develops in different dimensions.

Outside of the Gospel of John and the Law of One, or individuation, or the frequency in Human Design, the Logos appears in Heraclitus as the principle of order and knowledge, in Philo as the bridge between Greek thought and Judaism, and in Jung’s work on archetypes and individuation. In all of this I see the same thread. Logos is the order through which infinity becomes embodied uniqueness in this beautiful planet Earth where spirit is incarnated.

To be incarnated means to be in the flesh, as the etymology itself reveals, and the Gospel of John speaks of Christ’s incarnation as the embodiment of the Logos. That is the principle of the Logos: we are spirit, in flesh.

To speak of Logos without embodying it would be empty. To live the Logos is to embody the virtues. My voice grows more courageous as I speak and write; I choose honesty because truth is my anchor; I bow to humility as the ground of learning; I give thanks daily through gratitude; I practice kindness in presence and in word; I sharpen discernment to align with my Logos; I cultivate excellence as a daily discipline; I act with generosity so that value circulates. These are the virtues that I abide by, every day, all the time.

Have you meditated deeply on what is the reflection of your Logos?

have a great week, get inspired and inspire somebody else!

---

---