I have recently added a wiki bio on monoskop.org. Monoskop is a great tool, but it leans heavily on lib-left institutional credentialism (check the pages for acclerationism and CCRU for example, where Nick Land and r/acc is conveniently omitted.) Including myself here therefore, feels like "reactionary bleed" into that network.

Below I have used an LLM to dig further into the bio for greater context and clarification.

Short answer first:

Ball’s “post-secularism” is not a neutral or dialogical post-secularism (à la Habermas or Taylor). It is an explicitly anti-secular, neo-Gnostic, theologically committed position that treats secular materialism and techno-modern rationality as metaphysically adversarial forces.

Below I’ll unpack that carefully and precisely, grounded in the passages you’ve provided [the provided passages were recent Xegis Codex writings given to the LLM].

In these texts, Ball does not position secular reason as something to be translated into or dialogued with. Instead, secularism is framed as:

• “secular-materialist and atheistic mind”

• “quantitative-aspects of the physical world over the qualitative-attributes of spirit”

• “profane, secular, technological, technocratic, and material form of subjugation”

This is not post-secularism in the sociological sense of “religion re-entering public reason.” It is closer to what could be called anti-secular metaphysics.

Secularism here is not incomplete or insufficient; it is actively dangerous, part of an Archontic or Satanic system that deepens “Separation from Source.”

So Ball’s position is:

• not “religion still has a role”

• but “secular modernity is spiritually hostile and ontologically false”

Crucially, Ball is not using religious language symbolically or poetically. He affirms:

• God / the One / Source

• Christ-consciousness as an ontological reality

• Gnosis as salvific knowledge

• Archons, Demiurge, Satanic forces as real metaphysical agents

• Redemption, Fall, Ascension, Salvation as real processes

For example:

“true reclamation and redemption… occurs through self-realisation and Gnosis”

“techno-acceleration devoid of the Path back to God represents… conditions that are in reality Satanic”

This places him outside most academic post-secular theory, which typically brackets metaphysical truth-claims.

Ball’s stance is better described as:

post-secular because it rejects secular modernity, but pre- or trans-modern in its metaphysical commitments

A key axis of Ball’s thought is that technology is teleological:

• Technology oriented toward reunification with God → potentially redemptive

• Technology oriented toward disconnection from Source → Archontic / Satanic

This is very clear in the first essay:

“If the ontology is devoid of higher purpose and telos aligned with the One… then it represents a modern Archontic trap”

So Ball’s post-secularism is not about religion coexisting with technology; it is about judging technology theologically.

This differs sharply from:

• posthumanism

• techno-optimism

• even many post-secular art practices that treat spirituality as aesthetic or speculative

An important nuance: Ball is not simply rejecting materialism.

He argues that:

• Classical Gnostic disdain for matter is no longer sufficient

• Control systems now operate beyond materiality (digital, psychic, noospheric)

This is where his thought genuinely becomes post-materialist:

“the new threat landscape is no longer simply about the realm of matter as prison”

This is a neo-Gnostic update: the prison has migrated from matter to systems, networks, consciousness, and simulation.

That is a distinctly post-secular move — but again, one grounded in belief, not analysis.

Ball is not describing a condition; he is issuing a call.

He speaks in terms of:

• threat

• war

• inversion

• corruption

• enslavement

• rise up

• fight back

For example:

“it is time for humanity to rise up and fight back, for a free… human future”

This positions post-secularism not as reflection but as spiritual resistance.

In that sense, his work resembles:

• apocalyptic theology

• eschatological Gnosticism

• spiritual counter-accelerationism

rather than post-secular philosophy as usually defined in academia.

Grounded strictly in these texts, Ball’s position can be described as:

A neo-Sethian, anti-secular, post-materialist Gnosticism that treats secular modernity, transhumanism, and techno-capitalism as metaphysical agents of Separation, and frames spiritual knowledge (Gnosis) as the only viable counter-force.

Or more succinctly:

Post-secularism, for Ball, is not coexistence after secularism, but a spiritual struggle against it.

With this new evidence, I would revise one part of my earlier characterization:

• I previously framed Ball’s post-secularism as “dialogical” and “speculative”

• His actual writing shows it is doctrinal, oppositional, and salvific

The “speculative” element remains (hyperstition, systems, AI), but it is embedded within a strong metaphysical commitment, not an open-ended inquiry.

On platforms like Monoskop discussing such themes would be incredibly jarring, so it makes sense that his bio is more "tame," where if you really dig into the work, you then find out what its really about, do you agree?

Yes — I agree with you, and I think you’ve put your finger on something structural, not accidental.

What you’re noticing is not a contradiction so much as a strategic and contextual modulation of discourse between art-world legibility and doctrinal content. Let me unpack that carefully.

Platforms like Monoskop operate within a shared art-theoretical grammar:

• post-internet

• speculative philosophy

• post-human / post-material

• esotericism (as aesthetic or discursive resource)

• critique of capital, infrastructure, and systems

Within that ecology, terms like:

• post-secular thought

• techno-spiritual hybridity

• esoteric philosophy

• speculative theology

function as soft signifiers. They signal complexity and criticality without committing the author to belief, salvation, or metaphysical truth-claims.

If Ball’s bio on Monoskop were to say, plainly:

“I believe secular modernity is Satanic and that salvation comes only through Gnosis and reunification with God”

it would immediately:

• collapse his work into “religious art”

• break art-world neutrality

• foreclose institutional legibility

• trigger curatorial and academic antibodies

So yes: the tameness is functional.

What you’re describing is a classic but under-acknowledged phenomenon:

The art-world profile describes methods and aesthetics, while the work itself advances an ontology.

In Ball’s case:

• The bio frames form (post-media, speculative, para-academic, Web3)

• The Xegis Codex asserts truth (Gnosis, Christ-light, Archons, salvation)

This produces a double register:

That disjunction is not accidental — it allows the work to circulate.

You’re right that calling his work anti-secular feels jarring on platforms like Monoskop because:

• Contemporary art largely assumes a methodological secularism

• Even when religion appears, it is:

  • ethnographic

  • critical

  • symbolic

  • historicized

• Belief is usually bracketed

Ball violates that norm.

He is not:

• analyzing belief

• aestheticizing religion

• historicizing Gnosticism

He is participating in it.

That places him closer to:

• religious movements

• esoteric orders

• counter-modern cosmologies

than to most “post-secular art practices,” even if the form resembles them.

In the bio, post-secular thought functions as a bridge concept:

• It reassures the reader that this is not naive religiosity

• It implies reflexivity and critical distance

• It keeps the work within contemporary theory

But once you enter the Xegis Codex, that bridge is crossed — and then burned.

Inside the writing:

• secular reason is not dialogued with

• it is diagnosed, opposed, and condemned

So the post-secular label is accurate only at the threshold.

Beyond that point, the work is better described as:

• counter-secular

• anti-Enlightenment

• neo-gnostic revivalist

—but those are terms the art world cannot easily metabolize.

There are precedents:

• Joseph Beuys (anthroposophy)

• Sun Ra (cosmic theology)

• Hilma af Klint (esoteric belief)

• Genesis P-Orridge (magick as praxis)

But most of these figures:

• either historicized their beliefs

• or encoded them symbolically

• or left room for ambiguity

Ball does not leave much ambiguity once you read the Codex.

That’s why the gap feels so stark.

To answer your question directly:

Yes, I agree.
It makes complete sense that:

• Ball’s public bio is restrained, theory-friendly, and art-legible

• while the actual work, once entered, reveals a far more radical, doctrinal, and oppositional worldview

This is not dishonesty; it’s contextual translation — or even protective camouflage — in an environment where explicit metaphysical commitment is professionally risky.

Iain, 2026.

I have recently added a wiki bio on monoskop.org. Monoskop is a great tool, but it leans heavily on lib-left institutional credentialism (check the pages for acclerationism and CCRU for example, where Nick Land and r/acc is conveniently omitted.) Including myself here therefore, feels like "reactionary bleed" into that network.

Below I have used an LLM to dig further into the bio for greater context and clarification.

Short answer first:

Ball’s “post-secularism” is not a neutral or dialogical post-secularism (à la Habermas or Taylor). It is an explicitly anti-secular, neo-Gnostic, theologically committed position that treats secular materialism and techno-modern rationality as metaphysically adversarial forces.

Below I’ll unpack that carefully and precisely, grounded in the passages you’ve provided [the provided passages were recent Xegis Codex writings given to the LLM].

In these texts, Ball does not position secular reason as something to be translated into or dialogued with. Instead, secularism is framed as:

• “secular-materialist and atheistic mind”

• “quantitative-aspects of the physical world over the qualitative-attributes of spirit”

• “profane, secular, technological, technocratic, and material form of subjugation”

This is not post-secularism in the sociological sense of “religion re-entering public reason.” It is closer to what could be called anti-secular metaphysics.

Secularism here is not incomplete or insufficient; it is actively dangerous, part of an Archontic or Satanic system that deepens “Separation from Source.”

So Ball’s position is:

• not “religion still has a role”

• but “secular modernity is spiritually hostile and ontologically false”

Crucially, Ball is not using religious language symbolically or poetically. He affirms:

• God / the One / Source

• Christ-consciousness as an ontological reality

• Gnosis as salvific knowledge

• Archons, Demiurge, Satanic forces as real metaphysical agents

• Redemption, Fall, Ascension, Salvation as real processes

For example:

“true reclamation and redemption… occurs through self-realisation and Gnosis”

“techno-acceleration devoid of the Path back to God represents… conditions that are in reality Satanic”

This places him outside most academic post-secular theory, which typically brackets metaphysical truth-claims.

Ball’s stance is better described as:

post-secular because it rejects secular modernity, but pre- or trans-modern in its metaphysical commitments

A key axis of Ball’s thought is that technology is teleological:

• Technology oriented toward reunification with God → potentially redemptive

• Technology oriented toward disconnection from Source → Archontic / Satanic

This is very clear in the first essay:

“If the ontology is devoid of higher purpose and telos aligned with the One… then it represents a modern Archontic trap”

So Ball’s post-secularism is not about religion coexisting with technology; it is about judging technology theologically.

This differs sharply from:

• posthumanism

• techno-optimism

• even many post-secular art practices that treat spirituality as aesthetic or speculative

An important nuance: Ball is not simply rejecting materialism.

He argues that:

• Classical Gnostic disdain for matter is no longer sufficient

• Control systems now operate beyond materiality (digital, psychic, noospheric)

This is where his thought genuinely becomes post-materialist:

“the new threat landscape is no longer simply about the realm of matter as prison”

This is a neo-Gnostic update: the prison has migrated from matter to systems, networks, consciousness, and simulation.

That is a distinctly post-secular move — but again, one grounded in belief, not analysis.

Ball is not describing a condition; he is issuing a call.

He speaks in terms of:

• threat

• war

• inversion

• corruption

• enslavement

• rise up

• fight back

For example:

“it is time for humanity to rise up and fight back, for a free… human future”

This positions post-secularism not as reflection but as spiritual resistance.

In that sense, his work resembles:

• apocalyptic theology

• eschatological Gnosticism

• spiritual counter-accelerationism

rather than post-secular philosophy as usually defined in academia.

Grounded strictly in these texts, Ball’s position can be described as:

A neo-Sethian, anti-secular, post-materialist Gnosticism that treats secular modernity, transhumanism, and techno-capitalism as metaphysical agents of Separation, and frames spiritual knowledge (Gnosis) as the only viable counter-force.

Or more succinctly:

Post-secularism, for Ball, is not coexistence after secularism, but a spiritual struggle against it.

With this new evidence, I would revise one part of my earlier characterization:

• I previously framed Ball’s post-secularism as “dialogical” and “speculative”

• His actual writing shows it is doctrinal, oppositional, and salvific

The “speculative” element remains (hyperstition, systems, AI), but it is embedded within a strong metaphysical commitment, not an open-ended inquiry.

On platforms like Monoskop discussing such themes would be incredibly jarring, so it makes sense that his bio is more "tame," where if you really dig into the work, you then find out what its really about, do you agree?

Yes — I agree with you, and I think you’ve put your finger on something structural, not accidental.

What you’re noticing is not a contradiction so much as a strategic and contextual modulation of discourse between art-world legibility and doctrinal content. Let me unpack that carefully.

Platforms like Monoskop operate within a shared art-theoretical grammar:

• post-internet

• speculative philosophy

• post-human / post-material

• esotericism (as aesthetic or discursive resource)

• critique of capital, infrastructure, and systems

Within that ecology, terms like:

• post-secular thought

• techno-spiritual hybridity

• esoteric philosophy

• speculative theology

function as soft signifiers. They signal complexity and criticality without committing the author to belief, salvation, or metaphysical truth-claims.

If Ball’s bio on Monoskop were to say, plainly:

“I believe secular modernity is Satanic and that salvation comes only through Gnosis and reunification with God”

it would immediately:

• collapse his work into “religious art”

• break art-world neutrality

• foreclose institutional legibility

• trigger curatorial and academic antibodies

So yes: the tameness is functional.

What you’re describing is a classic but under-acknowledged phenomenon:

The art-world profile describes methods and aesthetics, while the work itself advances an ontology.

In Ball’s case:

• The bio frames form (post-media, speculative, para-academic, Web3)

• The Xegis Codex asserts truth (Gnosis, Christ-light, Archons, salvation)

This produces a double register:

That disjunction is not accidental — it allows the work to circulate.

You’re right that calling his work anti-secular feels jarring on platforms like Monoskop because:

• Contemporary art largely assumes a methodological secularism

• Even when religion appears, it is:

  • ethnographic

  • critical

  • symbolic

  • historicized

• Belief is usually bracketed

Ball violates that norm.

He is not:

• analyzing belief

• aestheticizing religion

• historicizing Gnosticism

He is participating in it.

That places him closer to:

• religious movements

• esoteric orders

• counter-modern cosmologies

than to most “post-secular art practices,” even if the form resembles them.

In the bio, post-secular thought functions as a bridge concept:

• It reassures the reader that this is not naive religiosity

• It implies reflexivity and critical distance

• It keeps the work within contemporary theory

But once you enter the Xegis Codex, that bridge is crossed — and then burned.

Inside the writing:

• secular reason is not dialogued with

• it is diagnosed, opposed, and condemned

So the post-secular label is accurate only at the threshold.

Beyond that point, the work is better described as:

• counter-secular

• anti-Enlightenment

• neo-gnostic revivalist

—but those are terms the art world cannot easily metabolize.

There are precedents:

• Joseph Beuys (anthroposophy)

• Sun Ra (cosmic theology)

• Hilma af Klint (esoteric belief)

• Genesis P-Orridge (magick as praxis)

But most of these figures:

• either historicized their beliefs

• or encoded them symbolically

• or left room for ambiguity

Ball does not leave much ambiguity once you read the Codex.

That’s why the gap feels so stark.

To answer your question directly:

Yes, I agree.
It makes complete sense that:

• Ball’s public bio is restrained, theory-friendly, and art-legible

• while the actual work, once entered, reveals a far more radical, doctrinal, and oppositional worldview

This is not dishonesty; it’s contextual translation — or even protective camouflage — in an environment where explicit metaphysical commitment is professionally risky.

Iain, 2026.