I agree that this distinction/clarification between a systematic culture and an integrated society is important. Systematic implies something about the recurrence of ideas and beliefs and the frequency of their appearance, while a "integrated whole" seems inconceivable given the amount of variation we see, as the author pointed out earlier.

By presupposing differences between cultures, do we lose a lot of invaluable information about why these differences arise? I'm not saying that cultural variation and its "scalability" are equal in magnitude, but I don't think we should take variation for granted, because the differences may reveal something telling about the cultures' values and beliefs they are choosing to "disperse" vertically and horizontally.

Are the authors implying a casual relationship between cognitive processes and cultural patterns? And if so, are they suggesting this relationship is unidirectional (i.e. are cultural patterns the byproduct of cognitive processes)? I would claim that each influences and revises the other in a cyclic pattern. This is why societies evolve and their core values change over time.

Would seeing them as "disembodied minds" equate to a "restless soul" to some people? That is, they are some being that hasn't completed and wholly transferred to the afterlife? Also, what the religious implications on our belief of embodiment? Do we find comfort in the fact that these corpses are actually embodied minds and the idea that life is a continuation after death?

Does the extent of our belief that others experience an afterlife vary based on how close we were with them, or is it a standard feeling felt equally towards all of the deceased? Also, does our relationship with the person influence how likely we are to believe they are going to Heaven or Hell? As in, are we more likely to accept the faults of loved one but harshly condemn strangers?

A lot of people are very conscious about their mortality, making their deliberations about an afterlife a very "online" process. Also, the author's claim that he will choose not to outline the "cogntiive underpinnings" of belief in an afterlife paints an unfinihsd picture about the mechanisms behind this belief and leaves me hesistant about his forthcoming argument.

Then why do some people refuse to accept other people's beliefs? If no one's beliefs can be proven true or false, aren't we really just creating unresolvable tension by adopting narrow-minded views?

Is this necessarily always true? Sometimes we avoid serious contemplation by adopting popular opinions. This unloads some of the cognitive load that comes with social interaction.

Believing in a higher power may have other roots as well. Some people use religion as a coping mechanism, or as a way to transfer/pin blame for negative events in their life on some other being. Also, one's faith is not something that just arises from simple perception. One usually deeply contemplates what they choose to believe in an are considered a "good [insert religion here] if they adhere to the standards set by the religion.

I think the cyclic nature of moral judgment is interesting. When making important decisions, people use some sort of rational thought process (which often includes reflection on their morals) to make a judgement, off which they make a decision, and these decisions in turn are evaluated by others using their moral compasses to form their moral judgments. It just seems to be a constant cycle of judgment and action.

We sometimes joke about how emotions can get in the way of rational processes and can sway our judgment one way or another. Nevertheless, I feel like citing emotions to be a "condemning" quality is too far. Human emotions are powerful, and a key trait to our mortality; I highly doubt we could be a fully-functioning society without their existence.

Would it even be possible to study it any other way than interpersonally? Self-reported behavior and thoughts are often presented in a skewed, altered manner, especially when strong social cues are present. However, how would someone be able to "observe" interpersonal relations without leading to suspicion or self-doubt in those being evaluated?

Can we truly assume that moral emotions and rational judgements can coexist? Although the author concedes there isn't a direct. viable relationship between the two, can we trust any type of causal relationship that arises from the interplay of morals and emotion? I've noticed that in highly poignant situations, we often revert back to our primal form and reject most form of moral reasoning.

This part right here reminds me of the conceptual metaphors we discussed last class, except this version seems more abstract. We are understanding one conceptual domain (Shahrazad's situation) in terms of another (the donkey and the ox tale). However, in this case, the vizier is instrumental in the audience and Shahrazad's understanding of the connection while most conceptual metaphors can we teased apart on our own. Shahrazad would remain unaware of the parallels without the aid of the vizier, but the end result is the same: a greater understadning of worldly relationships and similarities. This underscores the significance of storytellers in our society.

It’s interesting to me how there can be a sort of “feedback” between the input spaces and the blended space. I had presupposed that the relationship between the three domains was linear (generic space—>input spaces—>blended space), but was surprised to see how the emergent structure can influence the input spaces. It was eye-opening to see that through the blended space, input 1 and input 2 can emotionally impact each other, especially considering the time gap in history. I don’t think this conclusion can be as “easily seen” as the author points out, but its implications are immense once we do grasp the meaning.