To have or to be?

coastaltiger25 said:Take Buddha, for example. He grew tired of the "aristocratic lifestyle" and pure narcissism, so he swung hard in the opposite direction toward extreme asceticism.
But even that eventually went to his head in a sort of populist way—arguably worse than the nobility he left behind. He ended up becoming a "god on Earth and in Heaven." 😁

I agree that balance is the key. The issue, though, is that achieving balance—whether for an individual or for society as a whole—is notoriously difficult.

It reminds me of what P. P. Njegoš once wrote:
"No one has finished a cup of honey yet—but don't choke on a cup of gall, because a cup of honey is just a cup of gall mixed together... and those are the easiest to swallow."

In the end, though, he did find a "middle path"—kind of a balance between having things and just being.
So, maybe no one should ever possess more than "that" specific amount where you start losing your sense of self.
Or maybe you have to be (so incredibly giving or generous in everything) that you eventually stop wanting to own anything at all.

The Middle Way isn't just about picking a spot halfway between two extremes—it’s about actually rising above them both. It's about breaking down those annoying dualities and lifting yourself up until you aren't stuck weighing one side against the other anymore.
To me, the Middle Way is that sweet spot where the spiritual stuff finally clicks with the material world, and they stop being two separate things entirely.

(Buddha)

😁 The answer is always right under our noses if we actually bother to look; it’s both, really... In his "Revolution of Hope," he laid everything out clearly, including his own profound sense of disillusionment.

So, when you actually *are* something, then you have
but if you have it without being it, you basically don't have anything at all
having and being are totally inseparable
though honestly, that kind of perfect balance only really exists in theory

People who possess more—or less—than what they actually "are," or people failing to be what they could potentially be, create that core restlessness that sits at the root of every single conflict. We’re never going to hit that perfect sweet spot where our essence matches our possessions, but we can sure as hell try to aim for it, right? 🤔

(Just a heads up: I’m not quoting some textbook or philosophy school here—I'm just dumping my stream of consciousness onto the screen
)
Maybe I should finally crack open Ford's *To Have or to Be* before I die, since I've owned the book forever but haven't actually read it (I "have" it, but I haven't integrated it into my actual being yet)
Might learn a thing or two after that.

Back when my generation was young and full of life, everyone was obsessed with *being* (okay, maybe not everyone). That was the hallmark of the Boomers and the start of Gen X

By the time Millennials rolled around, things shifted big time—they (probably burned by wars and economic shifts) started chasing *having* just so they could feel like they *are*

Boomers were all about "being" only as a means to an end to acquire stuff... they were a generation late to the materialism party. If they could get the goods without having to actually grow as people, they took that deal in a heartbeat

But our Gen X crowd (and looks like Gen Z too) seems to value this whole "being" thing again. It's like they're actively pushing back against the materialistic BS

Look, I haven't conducted any formal research or anything—this is just me writing based on vibes and a little bit of life experience