In line with Trey’s signature term communal ontology I’ve been thinking lately about the concept of eschatological ontology (which is, of course, communal). I have a number of thoughts on this idea and how it helps us frame being.
Firstly, I like to use the term as it reminds us we’re not in the eschaton yet, that we haven’t attained to that communion we are bound for. The concept of telos helps us see things through their final cause, but the concept of eschatological identity helps emphasize this as a participative limitation of the subject who engages in determining the identity of any particular object.
Under the term eschatological ontology, I think it becomes clearer that by virtue of living within temporality, we cannot access being through base perception; in other words, in this model we are necessarily puzzled by the world. If reality is eschatological, then we are blind and stupid in all things.
This sets the stage for an epistemology of grace; it necessitates a certain epistemic humility from a time-bound subject who gains knowledge only through revelation. That isn’t to say the subject cannot reach outward; he can ask for wisdom, but it’s then only through faith that he receives the grace to “blindly see” greater things. By faith one can cheat the system and participate in the world that has not yet come, and see the objects that are not yet apparent, in the spirit of, “even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise.” (Proverbs 17:28)
Counter to this way of thinking, though, many believe knowledge can be acquired through a progressive, dialectical process that builds toward an eventually-pure synthesis. This stance first is blind to its own blindness, and second relies on projecting unity out from this incompleteness, instead of receiving completeness incompletely through faith. It’s at the very start a broken epistemology for this world because it forgets that the work of projection is itself done within time. (Projection/imagination itself is not evil; it’s a tool we can use, but it’s one that should be used with humility. The problem here is the arrogance of ignoring the bias of the subject + the conflation of projection with identity. (Note: Projection and identity can come together, too, as we unite our wills with God’s and participate in creation. It is not a harmful bias at that point but the sharing of ourselves to the delight of things.))
To me an interesting implication of eschatological ontology is the notion that what things are is beyond what we see because what we see are parts of things and not the things themselves. And a practical implication of that is that we should stop trying to make sense of things. In this world, where unity exists we remain confused, and where unity does not exist we create names. It’s all such an absurdity.
All in all though I believe the notion of eschatological ontology at the very least helps us make sense of that absurdity and that temptation, and can help us remember to not worry so much about sense-making, instead preferring to be more trusting of the God who brings all things to their proper places, places that are beyond our present comprehension.
And finally once we’ve given that due trust to Him who knows us, it will be okay to say we know in part, and to hope that one day we’ll know in full, when what’s confused is shown to be clear and what’s clear is shown to be stranger than we could have imagined.