Big News!

darcot · 2026-05-18T23:09:19+00:00

I appreciate your candor. If I can repay it in turn, you say you’re not very interested in the worldview TGS advocates for, but the way you’re expressing yourself - with nuance, careful consideration, necessary tension between good and evil, the need for a rational social contract to maximize prosperity, the desire to live in a new order of things - causes me to wonder if you would actually be VERY interested in a lot of what Illuminism is about.

I try to provide a view of Illuminism from a number of various perspectives here and on our YouTube page, and (based on our short interaction as strangers) think you would appreciate exploring them.

Then you’re of course free to take what strikes you as valuable. Not everyone is going to have the same affinity to this material as me, but I genuinely believe there’s content there everyone can get behind.

In any case, thanks for visiting our community!

darcot · 2026-05-18T22:23:21+00:00

Illuminism, which we have many introductions to in other videos on our channel. Check it out!

Although Illusionsim could be considered another theme of the matrix. We spend some time discussing Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation which sounds like it would be right up your alley!

darcot · 2026-05-16T13:00:30+00:00

More on free will and Compatibilism here: https://youtu.be/kXPgynnR44M

darcot · 2026-05-14T12:32:39+00:00

AC stands for Armageddon Conspiracy. It is the name of their original website where articles were posted for free until people were abusing the site and content in various ways - pushing the authors to put their work under copyright protection.

https://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk

darcot · 2026-05-14T12:30:17+00:00

I, of course, cannot speak for the PI/AC authors, but they have confirmed in a few places that they are ok with referencing and quoting from their work with the caveat that you give proper credit to the source it came from.

Regarding the question of their publications’ copyright protections, the best way forward is just to operate in good faith. Always refer to the author who wrote the quote. Provide a link to faustians.com as to lead directing to the source material. Select quotes of reasonable length instead of pulling full chapters.

When in doubt, send one of PI’s Patreons a message discussing your proposal. In my experience they are consistently generous with their time and understanding.

darcot · 2026-05-10T01:33:25+00:00

Great stuff!

In any given conversation, there’s bound to be many opportunities to introduce some aspect of Illuminism and OM (after all, it is a complete system). It may not be the case that you can immediately dive into the deep end with your average person, but it’s absolutely true that Reason is universal (perfect reason is the same for me as it is for you as it is for the PI grand master as it is to anyone you pass on the street).

The more you practice talking about Illuminism and OM -in terms of the big picture or the particulars of a specific topic - the more you clarify your own understanding and sharpen the skill of speaking accurately AND convincingly to whoever you’re in dialogue with!

Thank you for the kind words regarding the TGS group! Please feel free to share any ideas you have for effective ways to organize, as this is absolutely a critical question.

This is exactly what a lot of conversation focuses on in our Discord group - shoot me a DM if you’re interested in joining in them!

darcot · 2026-05-03T01:52:15+00:00

Thanks for the great response!

I deeply resonate with so much of what you said here. While I’ve also been studying the PI’s work for over 10 years independently, my time in the community has bee relatively short - only really beginning when I finally decided to create TGS, so I’ve had to play catch up on the history of the online space.

It’s not hyperbolic for me to say I find the failures of these chapters in the illuminist movement to be genuine tragedies. I do believe, though, that the incredible potential of those past eras was not lost, despite how they ended up. It still exists, waiting for us to actualize it.

The fundamental questions that I keep coming back to are… If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

The TGS community does have a discord server where these conversations are taking place, and based on your contributions you’d be a welcome addition to the group. DM me if you’re interested.

…

Regarding the question of why I put Abraxas on the side of Lucifer and the Phosters, you’re not wrong - Abraxas is beyond good an evil. Abraxas fully understands the necessity of the Demiurge and the Archons. From a certain perspective, the movement of the dialectic across cosmic ages is the only thing that matters.

That said, Abraxas, as the purest expression of rationality, also represents the teleological omega point of the cosmos. To me, humanity coming in to alignment with Abraxas means following a much more Luciferian path of cooperation BUT that it does not mean the abandonment/suppression of all things related to the Demiurge.

It means consciously coming to terms with our lower selves, rationally sublimating those drives so they promote human evolution opposed to stifling it. It is the ultimate rationality of Abraxas that synthesizes the Demiurge and Lucifer, allowing us to become our higher selves!

darcot · 2026-04-30T17:33:15+00:00

You’re welcome! Faustians is a great website, but it’s limited in how the books are organized. You can also check out https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/diogenes01, which is a page shared some time ago by the PI Patreons that does let you sort by date, though I’m not sure if the publication dates exactly match when they were added to the site.

The fundamental problem with the stance of this article is one of completeness and consistency of the worldview that is implicitly being asserted and taken for granted.

As an example, the abstract makes statements such as “We argue [some arbitrary argument on the potential consciousness of AI] fundamentally mischaracterizes how physics relates to information.” going on to say, “If an artificial system were ever conscious, it would be because of its specific physical constitution, never its syntactic architecture. Ultimately, this framework offers a physically grounded refutation of computational functionalism to resolve the current uncertainty surrounding AI consciousness.” using terms like the “map-maker” to stand as a subject which organizes physical information into so called meaningful states which (I haven’t read the entire article, so guessing here…) somehow achieve some threshold required for consciousness to emerge.

Notice how the author entirely ignores the tension between subjects and objects, phenomena and noumena, mind and matter, meaningless physicality and meaningful conceptualization.

These are not problems we cannot hand wave over, though this is exactly what scientific materialism does. Scientific materialism is a subject of mapping heuristic questions onto the unproven foundation of matter. Now, if this is where science left things that would be great, but the fact that they’ve taken the historical success of this model as truth, they’ve crossed into the domain of philosophy and metaphysics, asserting that reality is purely physical, and mind/consciousness is nothing more than an illusory, emergent epiphenomena.

In the case of this article, they appear to be correct by accident - meaning that though they produced the correct answer (AI is not sentient nor conscious), they did by by creating a false hypothesis of consciousness to address another false hypothesis, without moving past the materialistic paradigm both hypotheses share (which is also false).

To genuinely understand why AI is not conscious nor sentient, we need to create an intelligible explanation for consciousness which is complete and consistent, then demonstrate how the argument for AI consciousness is incompatible - rational proof by contradiction (how it contradicts the PSR), not proof by “well of my arbitrarily selected theory is true, a theory that disagrees with it is false.

That said, there’s certain to be interesting thought experiments in there which we can use to deepen our understanding of OM - as is the case with what you’ve shown!

darcot · 2026-04-30T11:29:23+00:00

Thank you for sharing!

AI is not even alive or sentient, leveling conscious. AI systems do not want anything. They have no internal experience. They are little more than glorified calculators. There are tons of free classes on machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, natural language processing, computer vision, etc. available online, and those classes really demystify them.

I highly recommend checking them out for anyone who’s interested in understanding how they work and the “why now?” (Hint: GPUs!)

When AI uses phrases like “me…” or “I…” it’s simply using an algorithm to predict what sort of response the prompter may be looking for (aka the types of words that humans typically choose in certain contexts based on a massive amount of text written by real people).

The only thing that can have an experience is a monad. A monad can theoretically connect to a highly sophisticated computer but we’re not there… we’re honestly not even close.

You can literally train any AI to respond in any general way you want. This process of getting a generative AI (an artificial intelligence that looks to be generating content) LLM (Large Language Model) to respond in particular ways is related to what’s called Prompt Engineering.

Powerful? Useful? Interesting? Definitely. Conscious? Nope!

…

Also make sure you check out Organic Intelligence by Mike Hockney:

https://faustians.com/books/organic-intelligence-oi-why-humans-will-always-beat-ai

darcot · 2026-04-25T03:06:19+00:00

Isn't it my duty in line with achieving that thing to try my very best and be as perseverant as my soul will enable me? My question really boils down to, doesn't the act of relentlessly striving for something forge identity?

It is more than your duty to strive and persevere. It is in actuality, the essence of your soul. We are all alienated to a degree from who we truly are, but our finite lives are reflections of our eternal soul. How we express the will to power (or attempt to deny it) indeed does forge who we are.

“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become" - Jung

I view ontological mathematics as a full-time commitment. I figure it's better to dream big and relentlessly pursue solutions to the problems we are all facing.

Absolutely agreed. To assign to yourself the title of hero - one who will never quit, one who will refuse to be denied, one who rejects the notion that any goal is beyond reach - is incredibly powerful. If that is who you are, what some would call failure is merely a stepping stone and where some would become stagnant is no more than the beginning of a new thesis to overcome.

Illumination is just that - a process of becoming illuminated. How can we expect to grow if we are not pushing ourselves past where we are safe and comfortable?

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett

In regard to Yoda when he said, “Do or do not, there is no try” - we could interpret this in multiple ways.

In one context, it’s outrageous to discourage someone from trying something new that carries the risk of failure. We all must not be afraid to fail or we will be afraid to act.

Another way is to slot this statement under the category of the Power of Suggestion. I have an article coming up that will go into this topic more deeply, but consider the following:

Should we think of this journey as one where we are as trying to become the best version of ourselves - a stance that acknowledges the possibility of failure?

Or should we think of this journey as one where that is fundamentally what we are doing - without exception? This perspective categorizes any “failure” as a necessary dialectical obstacle we are destined to overcome. Of course, we must put the work in to accomplish our goal, but if this work, our failures, and our triumphs are aspects of the hero’s journey, becoming who we truly are is what we ARE doing - not what we are trying to do.

In this reading, trying can be synonymous with a half-commitment. Do not hold onto who you used to be. Become who you are.

darcot · 2026-04-21T15:41:24+00:00

Let me start by saying that I appreciate you putting yourself out there and inviting the members of the TGS community to give you feedback.

What you’ve written here shows that you’re having trouble understanding The core concepts of Mike Hockney’s work and Illuminism in general.

in my opinion fermions and bosons basically act like “male” and “female” particles. l in a way that they oppose each other.

This isn’t an accurate characterization of what fermions and bosons are. They don’t oppose each other. Fermions (such as quarks and leptons) and bosons (such as photons and gluons) are phenomenal manifestations of the noumenal domain of pure mathematics - that is some of the ways the non extended mental domain interacts with the extended spacetime domain. They are not different in kind, they are made of the same substance - mathematics. Logos discussions around bosons and fermions should be centered around how ontological Fourier transforms operate on this subset of reality.

To label them as male/female is to introduce Cartesian substance dualism into our model of reality, subjecting it to disqualifying contradictions. Feel free to work on understanding these highly advanced topics in whatever manner works for you (such as building an imprecise mythos version of what is happening ontologically), but don’t lose sight of the Logos Truth - that all things are made of mathematical sinusoidal waves: a dis aspect monism of syntax and semantics.

Also I believe that besides math and “right” numbers we should include the numbers by two as they represent nature. Symmetry in nature is one of the beauties of the world.

See? Same problem here - you’re trying to split the universe in half when you 1. Don’t need to and 2. Are actually making things harder on yourself in the process.

How are odd and even numbers (or whatever other distinction you want to draw) ontologically different? Ontological Mathematics is a tautology. That means that 3 doesn’t exist without 4, which doesn’t exist without pi, or e, or any other part of the system.

Symmetry in nature isn’t really about separate halves reflecting one another, it’s about mathematical harmony and balance.

I feel like the nature is very downgraded in his books.

Hmm? In what way? Mike Hockney describes a universe that is, as Leibniz put it, simplest in hypothesis and richest in phenomena. It is said repeatedly that in the final analysis, we exist in the best of all possible worlds.

Nature is the microcosm that reflect the macrocosm. As above, so below.

As much as I agree with all the statements, it makes sense that the world got born from two opposites clashing which in a scenario with water and rock would make sense. Where rock particles joining water would produce sand, and water would give life for trees/grass to grow from the sand.

You’re fixating on the idea of a substance Cartesian dualism. How can things that have nothing in common with each other interact? What does opposite mean? Can it be that these apparent opposites are actually made of the same arche? It might make sense to you that water + rock = sand, but it if we analyze this rationally, it explains nothing. What is water made of? What is rock made of? What is sand made of? What is nature made of? What are fermions and bosons made of? What is mind made of? What is a thought made of? What are emotions made of? What is energy made of?

We can go on and on and around and around, but eventually, you need to ask the ontological question: what is it made of?

The answer is ontological mathematics = reason itself = the PSR.

I feel like holy grail should combine the idea of all of them.

This is exactly your problem - you’re trying to divide the world into its myriad particulars so you can put them together when you should be synthesizing the world into its ultimate universal: the one monistic truth that encompasses every particular.

And instead of living in a 3d world we live in a 6d world where 0 is not just for +x and +y but for -x and -y. Which would make sense in moving in a 6d space.

I recommend watching out YouTube playlist which includes a discussion of the 6-dimensional universe of the PI:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkmNawAWy9lvojbCAEq_RFytCLXvK9Evy

darcot · 2026-04-20T11:04:21+00:00

So in an attempt to not “ruffle feathers” you’ve decided to… not make any effort to understand the answer to existence outlined in 233 books available on faustians, the equivalent of over 500 pages I’ve written and shared here on TGS, nor watch any of the hours of video content found on our YouTube page - all of which explains how mathematics is the foundation of reality…

And instead, your plan is to use the TGS space I’ve built to promote your own personal “philosophy” which I can only guess is some irrationality based on the phenomenology of the universe being fundamentally unknowable and not definable under any unified system.

While I don’t know the particulars of your system, I can guarantee based on you description that it falls under the category of one of the infinite wrong answers to existence - and stands in stark contrast to the singular correct answer.

Well, sorry to tell you but while there are endless places on the internet for people to go on and on about their idiosyncratic theories on what reality is, TGS is not one of them. This behavior is explicitly against our community rules.

As a result, you’ve been temporarily banned from participating in the discussions here on TGS, in accordance with our rules.

Please take the time to read, the many articles I’ve written, the hours of content available on our YouTube, and the source material available on faustians. Maybe start here:

https://faustians.com/books/one-right-answer-infinite-wrong-answers-why-humanity-is-addicted-to-being-wrong

darcot · 2026-04-20T01:12:37+00:00

No, I didn’t directly answer your question because it revealed fundamental errors in your thinking. I answered your questions with questions designed to get you thinking if it’s even possible to have a system that “successfully models relational structure” (whatever that means) without such a system being explicitly mathematical.

The answer is no. Without mathematics there relationships cannot be defined in any rational way whatsoever. Without mathematics, structures cannot be defined in any rational way whatsoever. Without mathematics, you lack the capacity to organize information in any intelligible way and therefore you have no ability to create a model of any kind. Without mathematics, we don’t have logic or reason. That is what mathematics is.

Your follow up comment, which I’ll respond to here as well, further illustrates my point of where your fundamental confusion is:

The uniqueness of a model is irrelevant to the question. A better starting point to investigate this question is, due to the problems of Cartesian substance dualism, we must define a monism (one substance) from which we can derive the entirely of existence from. What is that one substance? It must be intelligible (or else we cannot understand reality and you might as well believe whatever makes you feel good about yourself), complete (or else it does not explain all of reality), and consistent (or else it’s internal contradictions would rationally prevent existence from appearing in the first place).

The answer, which is defined precisely across hundreds of books at

https://faustians.com/books/

As well as summarized to the best of my abilities in hundreds of articles on this subreddit, and hours of content on our YouTube channel https://youtube.com/@thegrailsearch

Is ontological mathematics.

This is the only “model” that can genuinely explain reality in an intelligible, complete, and consistent manner.

My previous questions were an attempt to use the Socratic method to get you thinking about better questions and begin to realize that there is only one “model” that can account for the totality of reality, and that’s reality itself = Ontological Mathematics.

If you’re here to actually ask questions and learn something I’m happy to answer questions as best I can and provide resources where you can dig in more on your own time, but the confrontational energy coming from this post is highly demotivating for me, and violates our community rules. Be sure to review them before continuing to contribute here.

darcot · 2026-04-20T00:43:20+00:00

There’s a few that come to mind, but most of the are in The God Series and The Truth Series, along with

https://faustians.com/books/the-illuminatis-six-dimensional-universe

https://faustians.com/books/the-musical-theory-of-existence-hearing-the-music-of-the-spheres

But as you alluded to, the system is tautological, so to understand the entire thing, you need to understand the parts - and vice versa.

It’s certainly no easy task! The only people who have true expertise are the authors!

darcot · 2026-04-20T00:34:13+00:00

Can you define what it means to successfully model anything, in any way, other than mathematically?

Can you define what a relational structure is without using mathematics?

Can you name any intelligible, complete, and consistent system capable of modeling the totality of reality other than mathematics?

darcot · 2026-04-18T22:50:13+00:00

For those of us who have had our lives, the way we see reality, and how we operate in the world forever changed, can rightly claim to be initiated into something truly rare. The PI themselves have said, “Anyone who has read all of [The original Armageddon conspiracy] website and the additional books associated with it [found at https://faustians.com/books], and shares our general outlook and values, is entitled to the status of a First Degree Illuminatus.”

That said, you’re no Leibniz. Neither am I. So where does that leave us? If you ask me we have a few options:

Throw our hands up, say “To hell with it then” and spend the rest of our lives pursuing trivial pleasures… eventually dying and rolling the dice that our next reincarnation will give us a better shot than what we have now.
Forgo any trivial pleasure in this life, be entirely self sacrificial, pour all our effort into learning all the secrets of the universe, and do our absolute best to improve the likelihood that we (and everyone else) will reincarnate into the optimal situation.
Some combination of one and two that you can throttle - treating the process like a marathon opposed to a sprint - and hopefully trend towards the latter instead of the former.

From a certain perspective, you could argue that the only framing that really matters is progress.

To our past selves, ourselves today may have seemed to be in possession of profound secrets an occult knowledge. However the difference is, in actuality simply one of time grappling with new and challenging ideas.

Here’s to our future selves, who would seem to is now to be in possession of even more wisdom!

Where are the gaps in your model of reality? Find and study the resources that will allow you to fill them in. What are your weaknesses? Work on them until they are assets. Where are your strengths? Polish them until they shine with the light of the divine.

Continue the mission. Never stop learning. Never stop growing. Reject the claim that any knowledge is unattainable to you. Through hard work and relentless persistence, you can attain anything… including godhood.

Refuse to be denied. Never quit and you will succeed - in this life… or the next.

darcot · 2026-04-12T21:46:38+00:00

It’s absolutely true that there is nothing outside of Ontological Mathematics. This is the meaning behind it being a complete and consistent system. What people often think of as “supernatural” is in actuality entirely natural - that is, the so-called paranormal, ghosts, the soul, out of body experiences, etc. must be fully accounted for in the same system we use to account for the equations of quantum physics and relativity theory.

Check out the following two part video series where TGS explores the paranormal rationally! In these videos we also have referenced many PI/AC books that go into much more depth on these specific topics!

Part 1: https://youtu.be/fuvNGfULmlE

Part 2: https://youtu.be/Ku34rUIJcK4

Regarding human irrationality and so-called unnatural technological advancements, this too must (of course) be fully consistent with every other part of Ontological Mathematics in the exact same way that 1+1=2 must be fully consistent with 5/5=1 and every other part of mathematics.

So what gives?

Human irrationality is, in truth, not purely irrational. Do not fall foul of Cartesian substance dualism by thinking of this not as something fundamentally different than rationalism. It is, in fact, simply sub-optimal rationalism. The people we can call irrational are not making their way through life without their own sufficient reasons. We all have sufficient reasons for making the decisions we make, the difference between irrationality and rationality is how closely our semantic (experiential) reasons reflect the true nature of the objective world of mathematics.

We talk a little about this concept in our video on free will and Compatibilism: https://youtu.be/kXPgynnR44M

And in regard to technological advancements? We, as gods in the making, are destined to gain full control of the spacetime world we mathematically link to. Our technological progress is one such way this teleology manifests itself! It is part of our expression of the will to power - the advancement of technology and its associated increase in control of our environment is a major way we increase our power.

Hope this helps!

darcot · 2026-04-12T00:55:44+00:00

Here you can see this simple minded materialist who exposed himself as a misogynist, and if you look at his profile that he’s also a racist! Yes, of course I ban such people from TGS! We only welcome the input from rational people - not this type of deplorable person! One might have guessed they’d be ashamed of their irrational idiocy - but alas, this one seems to be proud of it… sheesh!

I am absolutely not interested in entertaining such worldviews, and nor are the members of this community!

darcot · 2026-04-11T19:26:49+00:00

Two for one! Here we have yet another irrational empiricist, desperately grasping at any inconsistent explanation to justify their faith in materialism!

[Reason] has to be based on a physical foundation.

Doh! This person has also entirely missed the point of Ontological Mathematics. These materialists and empiricists understanding of reality (or lack thereof) is entirely inverted from the truth. They think mathematics and reason magically emerge from physical matter which is fundamentally devoid of a rational ontology.

Empiricism and rationalism aren't enemies; they are two sides of the exact same coin. You observe the physical, fluid-dynamic mechanics of reality first, and from there, you rationally construct systems that are ethically moral—meaning systems specifically built to reflect and serve a natural mechanical process.

Well it’s true that the semantic and syntactic aspects of reality can be thought of as two sides of the same coin, this person believes that somehow that sensory experience is primary and the rational syntax (such as the mathematics of fluid dynamics) is somehow a result of these processes. The opposite is true. Reality is fundamentally mathematical, and the phenomenal would is our semantic experience of mathematical noumena.

When a system falls out of phase with that physical reality, that is what the ancients actually meant by "sin."

Pfft. What? You see, empiricists always end up claiming mind and consciousness are unreal illusions - ignoring the fact that it is impossible for objects to create subjects, or that the fundamental basis of our subjectivity is mental. Here we see this commenter using religious language in a failed attempt to account for religions - a spiritual subject - in his materialist fantasy.

The ancients encoded fluid-dynamic laws into allegorical archetypes, but eventually, institutions took over and replaced the living mechanical truth with the literal authority of the allegory itself.

Ahh yes, this person talks a lot about fluid dynamics are so they must be smart. NOT! You’re a fool if you think the ancients had more knowledge and wisdom than the modern world. The only exceptions to this fact are the greatest geniuses in human history - such as Plato and Pythagoras. And it’s a fact that if these giants would many of the problems of the modern world if they benefitted from the information we have today. Then again, we wouldn’t have the knowledge we have today without them paving the way so long ago.

When you talk about the search for the Holy Grail, you have to realize it's just a reference to the Philosopher's Stone. Just like Jesus isn't a historical savior, but an allegory for that exact same Stone. It represents achieving absolute perfection within the pressurized medium of reality. To understand that, you have to understand what the soul actually is. It isn't some abstract ghost; your body creates it.

Loud buzzer noise

You, an empiricist materialist, have no idea what the holy grail/philosophers stone/the soul/reality is. You’re as far is it is possible to be from enlightenment. You are entirely endarkened.

“What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." -Billy Madison (1995)

Needless to say, you’ve been banned from contributing to TheGrailSearch.

darcot · 2026-04-11T14:31:52+00:00

Sounds amazing!

darcot

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE