That’s a point alright. I’m not too comfortable with the idea of “consuming” the body of a deceased. If that’s what is required for conjugation I think we might have to find a compromise instead. :-)
The degree of significance would appear to be an area where there could be negotiation toward conjugation, for example, as you say could they burn or bury and would that be easier to accept than the alternative for the other.

That said, it seems as though there is a similarity in mythic stories that speak to a desire for conjugation.

It seems like a valid way to eliminate the separation between beliefs, which would solve the problem (merging of belief systems). I wonder if the situation could ever be realized though in today’s world because of the shift that would have to occur in one’s belief may be too radical. It also requires that you bring someone else’s value into your own. For example one there is a tribe where it is customary to consume the body of the deceased to take their “spirit” with you when they have passed; could we in the western culture adopt such a pattern en mass enough to have effect? or vice versa could they just bury or burn the body?

That seems to be a first stage; to syntactically understand Mr. Smith’s views, and it seems reasonable for one to place more value in their own beliefs over another’s, but doesn’t that impede understanding at a secondary stage, a pragmatic stage maybe? What I mean is, if we can’t accept that someone else’s beliefs are as valuable as our own, how do we achieve any compromise that is beyond the “agree to disagree” kind of compromise. Maybe that is a good enough compromise, maybe that “is” compromise and anything more is consensus. I am wondering here if compromise and consensus are binaries and there is no middle between them.
But back to why I started to write this. Your mention of compromise lead me to think of another thing I’d read by Lévi-Strauss…{this post}…
Here he speaks of a “conjugation of extremes” that seems to be something greater than mere compromise. He writes “a final solution or climax of this conflict is offered by a conjugation of the two principles” as if to imply two principles merging into one. This is different that a co-existence of two different principles in one socio-cultural space. I think there is something in this that might lead somewhere.

Ok i’m just going to ramble a bit so bear with me. (these thoughts are just off the top of my head)

I’m thinking that to communicate in any regards one has to come to relative grounds with the group that you’re trying to communicate with.

Now communication in syntax is different from understanding; which might also need to be separated by agreeing or disagreeing with a statement. So if one were to break down all the parts on a topic we can see that if I were to speak yiddish for instance and Mr.Smith were to understand the grammar and syntax coming from a non indigenous background, it maybe difficult for him to understand relevance or the importance due to a different system of belief.

This is where relative belief may be the disparity in understanding between systems of thought. If Mr. Smith were to understand my yiddish I have successfully communicated to him, though agreeing on the topic may come down to where the greater value lies in belief systems.

If we approach it from an egocentric view the result will probably be that I value my own beliefs over that of Mr. Smiths even though I may understand him, this may lead to the discussion of co existence and compromise between two groups.

Ok that might have been a lot of mumbo jumbo but it’s an interesting question that i’ll have to think and read about some more.