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 BThis 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 centerpoint 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 alignmentbetween 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
Let us now identify these three essential criteria:
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.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.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.
1. Rationally Realistic Possibility of Fulfilling the Contract
The first criterion for an unbreakable covenant is the realistic possibility of fulfilling the agreement. This means that the fulfillment of the covenant must be achievable within the realm of logical probability, based on the best available estimation of rational possibilities.
In simpler terms, the covenant must be feasible—it must not contain an internal contradiction or an external impossibility that makes fulfillment inherently unreachable. A classic example is a loan contract with modest monthly payments. If these payments represent only a small portion of the borrower’s income—and are further supported by substantial savings or fallback resources—then the contract can be rationally fulfilled even in the face of moderate uncertainty.
The Inverse: Covenants Signed in Bad Faith
By contrast, we can observe the opposite scenario: contracts entered into in bad faith. Here, either party already knows—at the moment of signing—that ceteris paribus (if all conditions remain the same), the covenant cannot be fulfilled. This is the structural failure of the covenant:
The lender may know that the borrower cannot repay and intends to exploit this by repossessing the pledged goods—an example of master–slave dynamics rooted in guilt and power imbalance (as Nietzsche described).
The borrower may know in advance that repayment is impossible and manipulates the situation to assume the role of the “victim,” thereby engaging in a form of moral con artistry.
Both scenarios highlight the impossibility of the covenant’s fulfillment from the outset, even if both parties sign it. The agreement itself is built on the denial of trust—bad faith is woven into its very fabric.
The Two Versions of Structural Impossibility
There are two primary versions of this category, where fulfilling the covenant becomes exceptionally hard—often due to the exploitation of a vulnerable party:
Predatory Power Dynamics
One party uses the vulnerability of the other, creating a dynamic of master and slave—the contract is an instrument of dominance rather than a mutual commitment.Pre-Existing Impossibility
The covenant is signed with an awareness—conscious or unconscious—that the agreement cannot be rationally fulfilled under any foreseeable conditions.
In both cases, the covenant fails the first Axiomatological criterion: the possibility of rational fulfillment. And crucially, both parties are responsible for their own moral posture at the point of signing—even if the structural impossibility itself is shared.
Conclusion of the First Criterion
Therefore, such covenants—contracts that are rationally unfulfillable from the start—should never be entered. They are doomed to collapse because they violate the fundamental logic of covenantal integrity. The Axiomatological principle here is clear:
A covenant must be grounded in realistic possibility, not fantasy, force, or manipulative illusion.
A Non-Negotiable Contract
The first of these manipulated contract types arises when a stronger party exploits the weakened position of the other, essentially imposing the covenant without genuine consent. The Treaty of Versailles serves as a prime example of this form of coerced agreement.
After World War I, Germany found itself militarily defeated, economically devastated, and politically destabilized. Under threat of continued Allied occupation and the ongoing naval blockade that risked starvation for millions, Germany was presented with the treaty’s terms—non-negotiable, unilateral, and punishing. The agreement demanded massive reparations, severe territorial losses, and near-total military disarmament. Germany’s signature was not an expression of shared moral alignment or mutual understanding; it was a coerced act under existential duress, forced by a master–slave dynamic of victor and vanquished. In Axiomatological terms, it was a morally distorted covenant born from structural helplessness and enforced asymmetry.
A Sleight of Hand: The Retroactive Betrayal
The second form of rational impossibility is created through a sleight of hand—where one party unilaterally replaces or invalidates the original contract by engineering a new reality that the other party never agreed to.
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact exemplifies this dynamic perfectly. In 1939, the Soviet Union under Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, complete with secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. Yet from the very outset, Germany had no intention of honoring the agreement. The pact was a temporary shield—a strategic pause while Hitler prepared to launch Operation Barbarossa in 1941, the largest military invasion in history.
In this betrayal, Germany transformed the agreement from a mutual treaty into a trap. Stalin, had he known Hitler’s true intentions, would never have agreed to the original terms. The result was a contract that was retroactively and fatally altered, placing Stalin and the Soviet Union into a de facto non-negotiable covenant they never signed—an illusion of diplomatic alignment masking a premeditated act of war.
Conclusion: The First Condition of True Covenants
These two historical examples illustrate the essential Axiomatological principle:
A covenant must be rationally possible to fulfill at the moment it is entered—and remain unchangedthroughout its execution.
When both parties are able to realistically and rationally fulfill the covenant and the contract itself remains consistent, there is no excuse for breaking it. The structural foundation of an unbreakable covenant is thus not emotion or circumstance, but rational possibility and unchanging terms.
3. Fidelity to Higher Order
When it comes to the covenant, a common temptation is to mistake emotional intensity for rational clarity—to treat passion as if it could guide wise, durable decisions. Yet history and myth warn us repeatedly that emotions are fickle, and if we allow them to dictate terms, the covenant’s integrity will always be at risk.
This tension is captured powerfully in the myth of Paris, Prince of Troy. In choosing Aphrodite’s bribe—erotic passion embodied in Helen—Paris rejected the rational, collective offers of Hera and Athena, which would have secured political stability and military strength. His emotional surrender—prioritizing his personal infatuation over the wellbeing of his people—ignited the Trojan War and ultimately led to the ruin of his city.
This myth illustrates a timeless struggle: the peril of letting passion override reason, of letting immediate desire dictate eternal consequence.
Covenant as Transcendental, Not Transactional
This lesson transcends myth. In the Axiomatological framework, a true covenant must be transcendental in nature—not merely transactional. In other words, there must be an alignment between the highest value in the individual’s hierarchy and the very idea of the covenant itself. This alignment generates a form of loyalty that does not depend on shifting feelings or immediate personal gain.
In this structure, the covenant transcends the initial contract. It is no longer simply a bilateral agreement; it becomes a vertical relationship—a covenant not between A and B, mediated by an agreement, but between the highest moral order (the top value in the hierarchy) and each party individually. It becomes a matter of ontological alignment with a transcendent truth.
The Internal Chaos of Emotions
The greatest challenge in upholding such covenants is not external adversity, but the chaos within each individual. Even in the most stable environments, the human heart is a restless and shifting landscape. Needs and desires change over time—especially when children arrive and reorder life’s priorities.
This internal chaos is not optional—it is a built-in feature of human experience. It is why covenants like marriage or long-term family commitments are so formidable. They must be constructed with the understanding that the obstacles will come from within—that the true test of a covenant is not the storms outside, but the turbulence of each partner’s evolving inner world.
This reality underscores why the concept of “no-fault divorce” is, in essence, an oxymoron. Marriage is not a promise of perpetual ease; it is a vessel built to sail through storms of both the external and internal kind. What the law frames as a “fault” is often the natural emergence of emotional fluctuations—the very obstacles that a covenant must be prepared to endure.
A Biblical Example: Jacob and Laban
A compelling illustration of covenantal endurance in the face of shifting circumstances is found in the story of Jacob and Laban. Jacob, echoing his father Isaac’s fidelity to a promise given to the “wrong son,” entered into a labor agreement with Laban to marry Rachel. Deceived into first marrying Leah, Jacob nevertheless honored the agreement, working fourteen years to secure both wives and then an additional six years to secure his own flocks.
Despite Laban’s manipulations and frequent changes to the terms, Jacob remained true to his word. For twenty years, he endured harsh conditions and personal disillusionment. His feelings may have urged him to find a way out—perhaps even to adopt Machiavellian tactics to subvert the unfairness. Yet he chose to stay the course. Jacob’s unwavering dedication to the covenant—his fidelity to a higher order rather than personal feeling—illustrates the transcendent moral center that true covenants demand.
Conclusion: The Triumph of Duty over Feeling
In the final analysis, this third criterion reveals the deepest truth of all:
True covenants are not sustained by passion—they are sustained by alignment with transcendent value, by fidelity to the highest order of meaning and structure.
When the emotional tides recede, it is the internal architecture of the self—the steadfastness of the rational and moral core—that holds the covenant intact.
