(The excellent documentary that got my brain going down this – excellent or not so excellent – train of thought is ‘Consumed: Inside the Belly of the Beast‘)1
Erich Fromm is known in large part for his contrast between the ‘being’ and ‘having’ modes of existence, as expressed in his 1976 book (partial preview here), To Have or To Be? The basic idea is that humans, having estranged ourselves from our environment or the other(s), try to restore this relationship either by way of some kind of dominating possession (‘having’) of the other, or by way of relating to or existing (‘being’) with the other.
The speculative thought I wanted to explore via blogging (one of blogging’s best uses) is thus: Only ‘beings’ can actually ‘have'; and ‘havers’ are actually ‘had’ by the things they think they ‘have’.
The haver is defined by the act of possession of the other, and is thus enslaved to his desire to have this other. The being, however, is defined by, not possession, but relationship to other (and self), and is thus free of needing to have the other.
It is worth pausing and considering the many things we can desire to possess – the many things which can thus begin to possess us. Status. Wealth. Comfort. Knowledge. Satisfaction. Power. Relationships. Affection. I reckon all of these things are good things which are nonetheless distorted when we seek to found our being upon having them. i.e. “I am one who has knowledge, friends, wealth, etc.”
I believe the ultimate Being is the Creator, whose ontological (Gk. ontos = being/existence) status is wholly distinct from, and transcendent of, our world. The Creator did not need to have a creation2, but rather simply is a creative Being, and thus a) relates to creation as being the Creator, and b) therefore truly has it.
Thus, we most reflect this ultimate Being when our being is grounded by relationship to the other, rather than established by possession of the other.
