The Axiomatological Approach to the Nature of Agreement

When examining the nature of agreement between two parties, it becomes clear that such an accord is not merely a practical arrangement—it is a form of truth that reveals the deepest logic of Axiomatological thought. In this article, we will explore the nature of agreements from an Axiomatological perspective, investigating how these commitments manifest layered meanings and how they become vehicles for moral, metaphysical, and psychological truths.

The Idea of “God Participation” and the True Parties of the Covenant

This line of thought immediately leaps to the highest forces possible—right from the outset. Yet this claim is far from empty rhetoric. When we analyze the nature of an agreement between two individuals, we discover that such a pact, even at a purely theoretical level, creates the conditions for upholding mutual truth.

To truly understand this, we must first conceptualize the deeper structure of a covenant made between two people—let us call them A and B. This can be visualized in its most essential form as the following formula:

C  (Covenant)

A B

This simple diagram reveals a profound reality: there is something conceptually higher than either person A or person B—the covenant itself. This means that the “agreement” is not merely an interpersonal arrangement; it becomes an entity of its own within the relational structure. It is precisely this elevation of the agreement—its transcendence from mere transaction to axiomatic form—that enables it to be analyzed at the Axiomatological level.

A vs. Covenant; B vs. Covenant

The idea of the covenant in this sense allows us to separate the relationships between the parties in a transformative way. Instead of a direct, linear relationship between party A and party B, we now see two separate relationships:

• One between A and the Covenant

• One between B and the Covenant

In doing so, the covenant becomes an “absorbing simplifier”—an infinity brought into the realm of finitude. It functions as an ontological intermediary that absorbs the inherent chaos and unpredictability of two separate wills. From a theological perspective, this mirrors the role of God in classical metaphysics: the Absolute presence that reconciles and stabilizes the flux of contingent realities.

Impossibility of Prediction: The Limits of Human Forecasting

When we turn to the question of predictability within human relationships, we encounter a profound problem. The future reactions of two human parties are not akin to the predictability of weather forecasts, which are bounded by natural laws and measurable error margins. Instead, they resemble the unpredictability of financial markets—driven by countless interacting variables and recursive feedback loops.

To ground this in contemporary science, consider the work of Karl Friston, a British neuroscientist and theoretical biologist. Friston’s Free Energy Principle posits that the brain is constantly generating predictions about sensory input and working to minimize the difference—prediction error—between these forecasts and actual sensory data. This framework, known as predictive coding, suggests that even within one brain, absolute certainty is unattainable because the environment is dynamic and the brain’s generative models are inherently limited.

Chaos and the Two Brains: The Exponential Growth of Uncertainty

When we apply this principle to two human parties in interaction—two brains—the situation does not become merely more complex; it becomes categorically unpredictable. The interaction between two predictive brains creates an infinite field of potential interpretations and misinterpretations. This can be visualized as:

C  (Covenant)

A B

This representation acknowledges that any change in the external environment exponentially multiplies the subjective interpretations of each party. The internal predictive models of A and B are fundamentally different, and as the chaos of the external world increases, so too does the divergence in their interpretative frameworks. In simplest terms: the more circumstances change, the more differently the two parties will perceive and react to those changes.

Interactivity and Environmental Feedback: Beyond Linear Prediction

A further complication arises because the environment itself is not static—it is a product of the actions and reactions of the two parties and the reflected reactions of others to those interactions. This recursive dynamic is not like predicting the weather; it is akin to the non-linear chaos of the stock market, where every prediction changes the environment and the environment, in turn, changes every subsequent prediction.

The Covenant as Present–Future Resolution

In this context, the covenant is not merely a stabilizing transistor; it becomes something far more profound:
a specific version of the future, encompassing all possible fluctuations, unexpected transformations, and external chaos—brought from the future into the present moment. In simplest terms, within such a field of uncertainty, the covenant itself becomes the “future that is now.” It is an ontological anchor that integrates the infinite potential of chaotic possibility and binds it into a moral and structural present—an act of bringing the Axiomatological logic of structure and truth into the ephemeral world of human interaction.

The Solitude of Relationships: Covenant as an Extension of Internal Order

In this Axiomatological sense, there is always a performative difference within relationships—meaning that there is no simple “straight line” connecting the value hierarchies and moral absolutes of two parties, particularly given their inherent dynamic nature. Thus, the true meaning of a covenant is not simply the relationship between two individuals, but rather the unique relationship between each individual and the covenant itself. This becomes the center point of the covenant’s logic.

It is a fact of human nature that living beings harbor internal dualities. Throughout history, humans have conceptualized themselves as containing rational and emotional parts, order and chaos, masculine and feminine, culture and nature, certainty and variety. These dualities are not moral opposites—neither side is inherently good or bad. What matters is how these dualities affect the normative stability of the covenant.

The covenant, in this framing, is both descriptive and participatory. It is not merely an external contract—it reflects and extends the internal order of those who enter it. Here, the key insight emerges: the covenant can only be upheld by the rational part of the individual, not by the emotional or reactive part. To visualize this:

C (Covenant) — no connection — Individual (A): emotional part  
C (Covenant) — connection    — Individual (A): rational part

(Of course, this same structure applies symmetrically to the other party, B.)

The Masculine Logic of the Covenant

This leads us to a profound and provocative—yet non-discriminatory—axiom: the covenant, in its essence, is always an agreement between the “masculine” parts of two individuals, watched over by a higher normative structure (which religious language often names as God). Here, “masculine” does not refer to biological sex but to the structuring, ordering principle—the rational, value-aligned dimension of the self.

Consequently, the more an individual is psychometrically predisposed to rationality, discipline, and alignment with transcendent value hierarchies, the greater the likelihood of holding true to the covenant. It is not that emotional parts are irrelevant—rather, they are insufficient to stabilize the covenant because of their inherent fluidity. The covenant is sustained by the inner patriarch—the rational moral axis within each person.

Covenant and Its Relation to Emotional and Rational Aspects

When we consider the breaking of a covenant, we see that it is fundamentally a question of behavioral alignment between three essential aspects:

• Moral sense

• Internal value hierarchy

• Actual behavior

The more aligned an individual’s internal value hierarchy is with the idea and essence of the covenant, the greater the chance that they will fulfill the contract—even when challenged.

The Puzzle of “Unbreakable Covenants”

A question that has intrigued moral philosophers and spiritual traditions alike is whether unbreakable covenants are possible—agreements that an individual will honor no matter what, regardless of changing circumstances or personal hardship.

From the perspective of Axiomatology, the answer is clear: unbreakable covenants are possible—but only when certain foundational criteria are met. These contracts do not rely on fleeting emotional states or transient desires. They are rooted in a structured moral architecture that transcends circumstance.

The Three Criteria for an Unbreakable Covenant

1. Possibility of Fulfillment (R > R)
   The covenant must be rationally possible to fulfill. The rational will of the individual must have the capacity to align with the demands of the covenant—no logical contradiction or impossibility can exist within the contract’s terms.

2. Moral Absolutes in Value Hierarchy (R > E)
   The individual’s hierarchical value structure must be anchored in moral absolutes. These are absolutely rational values that supersede emotional states. In other words, rational and moral commitments are superior to emotional fluctuations.

3. Fidelity to Higher Order – Transcendental vs. Transactional
   The individual must possess a fidelity to higher order that trumps all lower emotional values. This is the key distinction between transcendental loyalty—commitment to something greater than the self—and transactional loyalty, which is subject to change based on temporary emotional comfort.
   
   
   
   

Decoding the Criteria: The Power of Rational–Moral Supremacy

The letters in the criteria—R > R, R > E—are not merely abstract formulations. They represent a precise ordering of priorities:

• R > R: Rational possibility must outweigh any competing rational limitation. The covenant must be logically and practically feasible.

• R > E: The individual’s rational and moral commitments must have absolute priority over emotional states.

• Higher Emotional Values > Lower Emotional Values: Emotional loyalty to transcendent sources (such as God, moral law, or eternal truth) must dominate over subjective emotional cravings.
  
  
  
  

Conclusion: The Architecture of Unbreakable Commitment

When these three conditions are met, fulfilling the covenant becomes the only logical and moral option for the individual. It is no longer a question of preference or feeling—it becomes an Axiomatological imperative.

In the next sections, we will analyze each of these criteria in depth, exploring how they interact to form the architecture of true moral endurance—and how they reveal the metaphysical weight of the covenant in the lives of those who dare to enter it.