Society Organization
The societies of today are obviously much less rationally organized, than they could potentially be, especially considering the (supposed) discoveries of the scientific dualism. In this section we try to review briefly the most important possible changes in the organization of the (particularly Western) societies, which would be rationally justified and could be carried out by following a more reasonable way of thinking and life style (as well individually as socially).
First of all, the (potential) confirmation of the reincarnation shows clearly that the individual plays a much more eminent role in relation to the society, than previously anytime presumed, since it is significantly more permanent and perpetual in its existence and qualities, compared to the earthly organizations and institutions. For instance, a spirit, who lived as an ancient Athenian citizen (like e.g. Sophocles), was reborn in its next and later lives with a very similar personality structure (continuously enriched by the (mentally integrated) new experiences), long after the classic Athenian democracy had already ceased to exist (like Sophocles was reborn later (most probably) as Vergil, Petrarch and Goethe). Actually, the worldly organizations and societies were apparently invented and established (by the founding gods of our civilization) exclusively (or principally) to support these individual development processes, and barely the succeeding earthly kings' and rulers' lust for power, the ignorance of the masses and the (hopefully only temporary) triumph of a materialistic world view could have perverted this initial humanistic idea in a way, that now the individuals are considered as subjected to the social institutions, and not vice versa (as it would be rational and justifiable).
The movements of the last two centuries (and especially those after the World War II), advocating the individual self-realization, seem to have already loosened the society bonds around the personality to a great extent, but in fact they have only made the situation even worse, because these liberal and materialistic views propagate an interpretation of the personal happiness and individuality, which is even less beneficial for the individual development, than the old traditional society it was. A person requires constant cultural stress and mental pressure imposed externally in order to be urged to question and to revise its inborn (i.e. in its earlier lives internalized) inclinations and habits, and without this socially set demand it is highly prone to stay within its own comfort zone (determined by its earlier experiences) forever, and even to praise this life style as "self-realization" of him/herself (not recognizing that it is exactly the society (and especially the economics) which can ultimately exploit this "self-realization", by compelling this person to become a "professional" and by depriving him/her of the possibility to follow a dilettante life style, where he/she could continuously learn new experiences and try out different situations). To illustrate the problem, let's take two persons: the first lived in many of his earlier existences as a warrior, without ever reading a book, and the other spent most of his preceding incarnations as a Jewish man, reading all day long books and without ever taking part in a combat (of course these are rather extreme examples, in the reality the various roles are usually not separated so sharply). To develop further, the first person should start to read books at last, and the second should try to compensate for his masculine shortcomings by e.g. learning a martial art. Instead, they will most probably do the exact opposite by following their inclinations (originating from their internalized experiences) and by "self-realizing" themselves: the first will become a body-builder and a fighter, and the second will read books again all day long, e.g. as a scientist or an intellectual. For the society it is seemingly beneficial that these individuals (and all the others) can "self-realize" themselves, as they do not need significant external pressure to become skilled in a profession, and their "talents" (i.e. their practiced and exercised habits) can be exploited productively; but in reality this could easily be the worst possible organization for a society, because in this system the individuals cannot transcend their own limits, and their personality becomes more and more distorted and skewed. Instead, the society's eminent purpose should be that the individuals would all develop eventually into harmonious polyhistoric personalities, and they all become completely identical to each other as realizations of the gods; and for this purpose it should put pressure on the individuals to overstep their comfort zones (e.g. by forcing the first individual to read and reflect on books, and the second one to take part in situations requiring masculine qualities). The society should discover the personality (i.e. the earlier lives) of each child as early as possible, and then construct an individual developing plan to compensate for the experiences of the preceding incarnations, and to support the person in learning new life styles and acquiring fresh knowledges. Therefore, although the individual is indeed much more important, than the society, and the latter is there for the sake of the former (and not reversed), however this should not be interpreted in the way (as the liberals do) that the society cannot impose cultural demands on an individual (since exactly these external requirements would urge the person to develop); instead, the society should certainly be tyrannical to an individual, but exclusively for the purpose of the development of this person, in order to encourage him/her to overcome his/her shortcomings and deficiencies.
As to the technical, organizational questions of the personality development (and other social tasks), obviously the family is the sole remaining institution in the (Western) societies of today, that is capable of stressing (culturally and mentally) an individual (to some extent at least), after all the other communities (rural, work and living communities) have already been dissolved in an anonymous and individualistic ("self-realizing") urban life style. But also the institution of the family suffers from many internal and external problems, and it can hardly be recognized as a long-term solution for the present and future needs of the society. First, it is clearly too small (usually only 3-5 persons large) to cover every (or even the most important) psychical needs of an individual, not only in terms of personal development, but already for usual everyday living (which is evidently shown, when a family is compelled to spend together e.g. 2 weeks in a vacation closely to each other, without the possibility of having other, not family type connections). Then, in the family only one relation is sympathy-based (between the man and the woman), while all the others are enforced by the "voice of the blood", which is an extremely primitive and inhuman way of association building, especially in a small community consisting of only some persons (where there is no easy escape from an antipathical connection). A third problem with the family is its ephemeral nature, since the children become inevitably adults sooner and later, and this terminates the family community unavoidably after only one or two decades. A family is also too sensitive (mainly because of its small size) to the loss of a family member, and a single accident or illness can already in itself significantly alter the structure of this tiny community, and could overburden the lives of the relatives. But, even if a family would have a perfect life, everybody within it would sympathize with each other, and it could remain essentially unchanged for decades, it would still cause the problem of making the society fragmented into very small subcultures and of separating artificially the people not belonging to the same families from each other.
Instead of these modern small families (invented and enforced by the Jewish-Protestant cultures), the traditional, much larger, more stabile and resilient communities should be revived, where thousands of people live together, knowing each other closely and intimately, like in a large family. Fortunately, with the communication technologies of the 21th century (Internet, smart phones, etc.) we have the possibility to resurrect these communities, furthermore in a much more sophisticated and dynamic manner, where not the physical nearness is the mere connecting factor (as it was the case in the traditional societies), but also the projects and tasks, which the individuals are currently working on, and their shared experiences and sympathies. In the last decades this progress has already started, but the liberal world view and its misinterpretation of the individual "self-realization" threatens to pervert this change again in a wrong direction (as we can see already today numerous signs of it), causing the society to become even more fragmented, because everybody can find now in the virtual world a small subculture fit for him/her, which renders his/her social capabilities even more rudimentary (like e.g. the people at the bus stops nowadays all communicate with their "friends" through their smart phones, instead of chatting with each other, until the bus comes). Contrary to this liberal misapplication, the technology should be used to expose the individuals' peculiarities to the attention of the entire community, and to connect people to each other algorithmically, who would otherwise not know each other (e.g., at a bus stop the system would suggest shared chatting subjects to the persons waiting there, and would provide the most relevant informations about the other passengers in order to induce a discussion and to make these persons friends for those 5-10 minutes). Essentially, every moments and aspects of the lives of the society's members should be thoroughly documented with the help of an Internet-based system, and the algorithms behind this system should connect the persons to each other and construct new virtual communities over and over again, in order to put the individuals under cultural pressure and to expand and broaden their world view continuously. The main concept behind this society organization would be that everybody should live a public and exposed life (to the extent technically feasible), and the community should comment and reflect on it, giving (positive or negative) feedbacks to the person repeatedly. The algorithms behind this system should ensure that these discussions remain (or first become) fruitful for the individual, and that the opinions and reactions of the community members are of sufficient quality and aggregated in a manner, which makes them suitable as a basis for the further development of that person. Of course, the existence of such a large and resilient organized community, built and maintained with the help of modern technologies and sophisticated psychological and sociological algorithms, would also be advantageous (beyond the support of the individual personality development) for the managing of the everyday (political and economical) tasks of the society (about these topics see the subsequent sections).
The dissolution of the families in larger communities would naturally not mean the end of the institution of the marriage (as in the traditional communities it is already known and plays an important role). Actually, the marriages would become even closer, because not the ephemeral sympathy would form and arrange them (like it is the case with the modern (and by the Protestants often groundlessly praised) love marriage), but rational considerations and examinations (like it was the case with the earlier conventional marriage, although, of course, often on the basis of wrongly made considerations). The main aspect to pair two people would be the spiritual togetherness of those two, based on the (as yet supposed) discovery of the science that each person has an own mate with an exact opposite personality structure. This type of connection would represent the marriage in a rationally constructed society (even against the potential repugnance of the partners), and any other form of pairs (even heterosexual ones, not to mention others) could not receive this highest status, even if the persons felt an almost irresistible affinity to each other. Ideally, the marriages would be arranged already in the childhood between the mates of a pair (e.g. after leading back the children into their preceding lives with the help of the regression hypnosis, and recognizing that the two were already several times a pair earlier; or by determining their personalities and finding the corresponding matches within the society), and they would last for the entire life, without the possibility to cancel them. When one partner dies, the most rational approach could be to let the other one die too, especially, if they are (were) still young, and otherwise the two lives could have drifted away from each other in terms of experiences and incarnation phases. Of course, numerous circumstances can be imagined, where this ideal marriage type is not feasible for some reason; in these cases the individuals should not be put under pressure to find an own partner and to marry it by all means (which would cause more harm than good), but instead inferior and temporary (romantic or purely sexual) connections should be established, with the continuous control and supervision of the community, and with the obligation for each partner to exchange (back) into the real marriage immediately, as its requirements are met.
The children should be raised again (as earlier in the traditional communities) by the whole society on the basis of common values and qualities, and the physical parents should not play a more eminent role in this process, than any other adult members of the community. Contrary to the (almost pathological) Jewish-Protestant practice, there should be no emotional attachments (especially not long-lasting and physically based) between the children and the adults (or among the adults, with the exception of the real marriage), and the sympathies within the society (which are in their momentary forms essential for the healthy individual and social life) should always have a current or remembered experience as a foundation. It could be beneficial to exploit the technological and medical possibilities, and to "create" children (more or less) artificially without the need of two physical parents (or without their knowledge), as this could make considerably easier to detach the parents from "their" children, and to avoid the developing of irrational emotional bonds (especially from the side of the women).
Ideally, the children should spend their days together with the adults, primarily with the women working in offices or similar environments. In the 19th century it was (somewhat) logical to prohibit the child labor and to force them into schools instead (as then they had to work mainly within very bad industrial circumstances), but in the 21th century (where the schools for the children are often in a much worse condition, than the office buildings for the women) it is ridiculous and outrageous to exclude the children from the workplaces, and to deprive them of the possibility to be together with the women in a much friendlier environment, spending their times with useful tasks and acquiring the necessary knowledges in a playful way (as it was already the case in the traditional societies). The tertiary (service) sector should be organized analogously to the primary (and not to the secondary) sector, i.e. with much more flexible time schedules and with the educational, productional and recreational functions integrated into each other inseparably, and should employ (besides the women and the children) also the pensioners of today. In the offices the children could learn with pleasure the reading and the writing (e.g. with the help of enhanced word processors, which could give smaller tasks to the children, lead them in solving these, and then integrate their successful works into the larger documents of the adults), and could acquire all the other required capabilities as well (e.g. calculating with the help of spreadsheet applications, or the essential knowledges by taking part in the conversations of the adults).
Finally, as to the division of labor between the genders, essentially also here the exact opposite of the Protestant life style would be rational. The women should spend their days in vibrant and dynamic environments, with many tasks to perform one after the other, since they require (lacking a rich inner life) external determinations and outside experiences; while the men, as they get only disoriented by such circumstances and disconnected from their internal wisdom and deepness (originating from the divine inspirations), should devote their time to complex thinking activities, performed in quiet and peaceful conditions. Ideally, all everyday tasks not requiring abstract considerations (or hard physical work) should be carried out by women, and the men should only deal with the strategic decisions and the great relationships (management by exception). Concerning the pecuniary matters, it would be advisable, that exclusively the women's activities should be remunerated, for several reasons: 1. these are much easier to separate into discrete units, while the men's (usually irregular) intellectual activities are significantly harder to follow and to account; 2. the women tend to spend money more rationally and with a greater care; 3. the men should not come into connection with financial issues, as it only contaminates their otherwise elevated thoughts; 4. the men would be considerably more encouraged to marry in this system; 5. the interdependence between the women and the men would be much more balanced, the women had actual levers in their hands against the men (instead of being necessitated to play hysterical scenes and to threaten with divorce repeatedly).