To Have or To Be - Revision history

Michael at 12:33, 28 August 2026

2026-08-28T12:33:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:33, 28 August 2026
Line 112:		Line 112:
	* power over others means breaking their natural "tendency to grow in terms of their own nature..." (p. 78). This involves restriction of our "free, spontaneous expression...[our] third for knowledge and truth, their wish for affection." (basically suppressing our drives to fulfill our needs). Undermining needs satisfaction and the drives which impel us to satisfy them causes rebellion, neurosis, psychosis, pathology,		* power over others means breaking their natural "tendency to grow in terms of their own nature..." (p. 78). This involves restriction of our "free, spontaneous expression...[our] third for knowledge and truth, their wish for affection." (basically suppressing our drives to fulfill our needs). Undermining needs satisfaction and the drives which impel us to satisfy them causes rebellion, neurosis, psychosis, pathology,
	* having-mode implies power over others. to increase our "having," we must control others (employees, slaves, etc.)		* having-mode implies power over others. to increase our "having," we must control others (employees, slaves, etc.)
			* suppression of needs and drives leads to a fruitless rebellion. Rebellious energies are sublimated (music, the sexual gaze, food, circuses, alcohol, etc.). Rebellion fruitless unless grounded in
	* Note from distinguishes Toxic Having from [[Existential Having]] - this is 'having' that is required for existence, food, shelter, clothing, tools necessary to fulfill needs.Having food, shelters, clothing etc. are existential and not in conflict with being.		* Note from distinguishes Toxic Having from [[Existential Having]] - this is 'having' that is required for existence, food, shelter, clothing, tools necessary to fulfill needs.Having food, shelters, clothing etc. are existential and not in conflict with being.

Line 119:		Line 120:

	== Quotes ==		== Quotes ==
			<blockquote>The tendency to grow in terms of their own nature is common to all living beings. Hence we resist any attempt to prevent our growing in the ways determined by our structure. In order to break this resistance, whether it is conscious or not, physical or mental force is necessary. (p. 78).

			All data indicate that heteronomous interference with the child’s and the later person's growth process is the deepest root of mental pathology, especially of destructiveness.(p. 80).

			The having mode of existence, the attitude centered on property and profit, necessarily produces the desire—indeed the need—for power. To control other living human beings we need to use power to break their resistance. To maintain control over private property we need to use power to protect it from those who would take it from us because they, like us, can never have enough; the desire to have private property produces the desire to use violence in order to rob others in overt or covert ways. In the having mode, one’s happiness lies in one’s superiority over others, in one’s power, and in the last analysis, in one’s capacity to conquer, rob, kill. In the being mode it lies in loving, sharing, giving. (p. 81)</blockquote>

	==Relation to LP ==		==Relation to LP ==

Michael at 11:42, 28 August 2026

2026-08-28T11:42:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 28 August 2026
Line 108:		Line 108:
	* emphasis on consumption, not preservation, throw out the old, in with the new		* emphasis on consumption, not preservation, throw out the old, in with the new
	* ideas as property,		* ideas as property,
	* ~~english~~ language expresses ownership		* English language expresses ownership
	* existence as deadness "In the having mode, there is no alive relationship between me and what I have. It and I have become things, and I have it, because I have the force to make it mine. But there is also a reverse relationship: it has me, because my sense of identity, i.e., of sanity, rests upon my having it (and as many things as possible). The having mode of existence is not established by an alive, productive process between subject and object; it makes things of both object and subject. The relationship is one of deadness, not aliveness." (p. 77-8).		* existence as deadness "In the having mode, there is no alive relationship between me and what I have. It and I have become things, and I have it, because I have the force to make it mine. But there is also a reverse relationship: it has me, because my sense of identity, i.e., of sanity, rests upon my having it (and as many things as possible). The having mode of existence is not established by an alive, productive process between subject and object; it makes things of both object and subject. The relationship is one of deadness, not aliveness." (p. 77-8).
			* power over others means breaking their natural "tendency to grow in terms of their own nature..." (p. 78). This involves restriction of our "free, spontaneous expression...[our] third for knowledge and truth, their wish for affection." (basically suppressing our drives to fulfill our needs). Undermining needs satisfaction and the drives which impel us to satisfy them causes rebellion, neurosis, psychosis, pathology,
	* having-mode implies power over others. to increase our "having," we must control others (employees, slaves, etc.)		* having-mode implies power over others. to increase our "having," we must control others (employees, slaves, etc.)
			* Note from distinguishes Toxic Having from [[Existential Having]] - this is 'having' that is required for existence, food, shelter, clothing, tools necessary to fulfill needs.Having food, shelters, clothing etc. are existential and not in conflict with being.

	=== PART THREE- THE NEW MAN AND THE NEW SOCIETY ===		=== PART THREE- THE NEW MAN AND THE NEW SOCIETY ===

Michael at 11:22, 28 August 2026

2026-08-28T11:22:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 28 August 2026
Line 72:		Line 72:
	Fromm's being-mode person is a local instance of that cosmic process: alive, changing, growing — a verb, not a noun.		Fromm's being-mode person is a local instance of that cosmic process: alive, changing, growing — a verb, not a noun.

	== Chapter II: Having and Being in Daily Experience ==		=== Chapter II: Having and Being in Daily Experience ===
	''Erich Fromm, To Have or to Be? (1976), pp. 29–47''		''Erich Fromm, To Have or to Be? (1976), pp. 29–47''

Line 90:		Line 90:
	* '''Loving.''' There is no such thing as "love" — only the act of loving: caring, knowing, responding, affirming; a process that increases aliveness. Having-mode "love" confines and controls the beloved. The courtroom example is marriage: courtship is being (each gives, attracts, lives, mutual satisfaction of needs); the contract converts the partner into property, effort stops, boredom begins, and the couple settles for jointly owning things — "a corporation in which the two egotisms are pooled" (p. 46).		* '''Loving.''' There is no such thing as "love" — only the act of loving: caring, knowing, responding, affirming; a process that increases aliveness. Having-mode "love" confines and controls the beloved. The courtroom example is marriage: courtship is being (each gives, attracts, lives, mutual satisfaction of needs); the contract converts the partner into property, effort stops, boredom begins, and the couple settles for jointly owning things — "a corporation in which the two egotisms are pooled" (p. 46).

	== Chapter III: The Testaments and Master Eckhart ==		=== Chapter III: The Testaments and Master Eckhart ===
	Fromm shows the having/being alternative is the underground current of the Judeo-Christian tradition.		Fromm shows the having/being alternative is the underground current of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Line 100:		Line 100:
	'''General statements across both chapters:''' Having is fundamentally an ''attitude'', not an inventory — its object is interchangeable. Having deadens: it converts processes into things, persons into property, self into stock. Being enlivens: it is productive, responsive, processual; its precondition is the courage to let go of ego and possession.		'''General statements across both chapters:''' Having is fundamentally an ''attitude'', not an inventory — its object is interchangeable. Having deadens: it converts processes into things, persons into property, self into stock. Being enlivens: it is productive, responsive, processual; its precondition is the courage to let go of ego and possession.

	=== ~~Chapter III: The Testaments and Master Eckhart~~ ===		=== PART TWO - ANALYZING THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODES OF EXISTENCE ===
	~~Fromm shows the having/being alternative is the underground current of the Judeo-Christian tradition.~~

	* '''Old Testament''' (pp. 48–53). Its central command: ''leave what you have; be!'' Abraham is ordered to abandon land and clan. The desert is the key symbol — the place of nomads who own only necessities. The manna story legislates against hoarding ("each gathered according to what he could eat" — to each according to their needs). The Shabbat is the tradition's purest being-institution: a day on which nothing is built or destroyed, no property is transferred, and one lives "as if one has nothing, pursuing no aim except being" (p. 51). The Messianic Time is the unending Shabbat: possession rendered meaningless. The Golden Calf is the counter-symbol — the people, unable to bear not-having, melt their gold into a visible idol.		=== Chapter IV ===
	* '''New Testament''' (pp. 54–59). More radical still: a movement of the poor that condemned wealth and power outright. The oldest gospel stratum ("Q") demands total liberation from the having structure — renunciation of property, of one's own rights, of judging others; all positive ethics rooted in being, sharing, solidarity. In the temptation story, Satan is the representative of consumption and power; Jesus, of being — and "not-having is the premise for being" (p. 57). The church fathers (Justin, Tertullian, Basilius, Chrysostomus) continued the condemnation of avarice and private luxury.		'''Having Mode?'''
	* '''Master Eckhart''' (pp. 59–65). The sharpest analyst of the two modes. His "spiritual poverty": one who ''wants nothing, knows nothing, has nothing'' — not asceticism but nonattachment. Wanting nothing = ~~no craving, not even for God. Knowing nothing~~ = ~~forgetting that one knows — knowledge as penetrating activity, never as possession or dogma. Having nothing~~ = not being ''bound'' to anything one owns, including one's own ego (''Ich-bindung'', "egoboundness"). Freedom from egoboundness is the condition of love and productive activity. Eckhart's being is "life, activity, birth, renewal, outpouring" (p. 65) — activity in the classic sense of expressing one's powers, not modern busyness. Fromm's generalization: in the having mode, what matters is not the objects craved but the attitude; anything — rituals, good deeds, knowledge — becomes "bad" when clutched into a chain (p. 64).

	~~'''General statements across both chapters:~~''' Having ~~is fundamentally an~~ ''~~attitude~~'', not an inventory — its object is interchangeable. Having deadens: it converts processes into things, persons into property, self into stock. Being enlivens: it is productive, responsive, processual; its precondition is the courage to let go of ego and possession.

	~~=== PART TWO~~ - ~~ANALYZING THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODES OF EXISTENCE ===~~		* biased, see everything through a filter of ownership, property, increase of property, exploitation
			* emphasis on consumption, not preservation, throw out the old, in with the new
			* ideas as property,
			* english language expresses ownership
			* existence as deadness "In the having mode, there is no alive relationship between me and what I have. It and I have become things, and I have it, because I have the force to make it mine. But there is also a reverse relationship: it has me, because my sense of identity, i.e., of sanity, rests upon my having it (and as many things as possible). The having mode of existence is not established by an alive, productive process between subject and object; it makes things of both object and subject. The relationship is one of deadness, not aliveness." (p. 77-8).
			* having-mode implies power over others. to increase our "having," we must control others (employees, slaves, etc.)

	=== PART THREE- THE NEW MAN AND THE NEW SOCIETY ===		=== PART THREE- THE NEW MAN AND THE NEW SOCIETY ===

Michael at 16:43, 27 August 2026

2026-08-27T16:43:27Z

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 Fromm's being-mode person is a local instance of that cosmic process: alive, changing, growing — a verb, not a noun.
-==== Chapter Two and Three ====
+== Chapter II: Having and Being in Daily Experience ==
 === PART TWO - ANALYZING THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODES OF EXISTENCE ===

Michael at 04:58, 27 August 2026

2026-08-27T04:58:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 27 August 2026
Line 43:		Line 43:
	==== Is There an Alternative to Catastrophe? ====		==== Is There an Alternative to Catastrophe? ====
	Why the paralysis? Fromm offers three explanations: leaders stage conferences and resolutions that anesthetize conscience while changing nothing; system-generated selfishness makes leaders value personal success over social responsibility — greed "makes people stupid" even about their own interests; and the required changes feel so drastic that people prefer future catastrophe to present sacrifice (Koestler's warm-villa anecdote). A fourth cause motivates the book: the belief that no alternatives exist beyond corporate capitalism, Soviet-style socialism, or technocratic "fascism with a smiling face" — a belief sustained because nobody has seriously studied or tested new social models. The book's task is that analysis: the two modes of existence, ''having'' and ''being'', as the foundation for a New Man [sic] and a New Society — or, in LP terms, the replacement of the Regime of Accumulation with a system oriented to needs satisfaction and connection.		Why the paralysis? Fromm offers three explanations: leaders stage conferences and resolutions that anesthetize conscience while changing nothing; system-generated selfishness makes leaders value personal success over social responsibility — greed "makes people stupid" even about their own interests; and the required changes feel so drastic that people prefer future catastrophe to present sacrifice (Koestler's warm-villa anecdote). A fourth cause motivates the book: the belief that no alternatives exist beyond corporate capitalism, Soviet-style socialism, or technocratic "fascism with a smiling face" — a belief sustained because nobody has seriously studied or tested new social models. The book's task is that analysis: the two modes of existence, ''having'' and ''being'', as the foundation for a New Man [sic] and a New Society — or, in LP terms, the replacement of the Regime of Accumulation with a system oriented to needs satisfaction and connection.

			=== PART ONE - UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING AND BEING ===

	=== Chapter I — "A First Glance: The Importance of the Difference Between Having and Being" ===		=== Chapter I — "A First Glance: The Importance of the Difference Between Having and Being" ===
Line 69:		Line 71:
	'''Being is becoming.''' Against Parmenides, Plato, and the scholastics (being as permanent substance), Fromm sides with Heraclitus, Hegel, and the Buddha: "Living structures can be only if they become; they can exist only if they change" (p. 25). There is no being that is not at the same time becoming. This maps onto the SpiritWiki's concept of [[The Unfolding]] — the cosmos itself as the ongoing unfolding of consciousness, an eternal process rather than a fixed creation.		'''Being is becoming.''' Against Parmenides, Plato, and the scholastics (being as permanent substance), Fromm sides with Heraclitus, Hegel, and the Buddha: "Living structures can be only if they become; they can exist only if they change" (p. 25). There is no being that is not at the same time becoming. This maps onto the SpiritWiki's concept of [[The Unfolding]] — the cosmos itself as the ongoing unfolding of consciousness, an eternal process rather than a fixed creation.
	Fromm's being-mode person is a local instance of that cosmic process: alive, changing, growing — a verb, not a noun.		Fromm's being-mode person is a local instance of that cosmic process: alive, changing, growing — a verb, not a noun.

			==== Chapter Two and Three ====

			=== PART TWO - ANALYZING THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODES OF EXISTENCE ===

			=== PART THREE- THE NEW MAN AND THE NEW SOCIETY ===

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

Michael at 04:36, 27 August 2026

2026-08-27T04:36:04Z

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 ==== Is There an Alternative to Catastrophe? ====
 Why the paralysis? Fromm offers three explanations: leaders stage conferences and resolutions that anesthetize conscience while changing nothing; system-generated selfishness makes leaders value personal success over social responsibility — greed "makes people stupid" even about their own interests; and the required changes feel so drastic that people prefer future catastrophe to present sacrifice (Koestler's warm-villa anecdote). A fourth cause motivates the book: the belief that no alternatives exist beyond corporate capitalism, Soviet-style socialism, or technocratic "fascism with a smiling face" — a belief sustained because nobody has seriously studied or tested new social models. The book's task is that analysis: the two modes of existence, ''having'' and ''being'', as the foundation for a New Man [sic] and a New Society — or, in LP terms, the replacement of the Regime of Accumulation with a system oriented to needs satisfaction and connection.
 == Notes ==

Michael at 04:02, 27 August 2026

2026-08-27T04:02:05Z

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ==Overview==
-[chapter by chapter summary]
+=== Introduction — "The Great Promise, Its Failure, and New Alternatives" ===
 == Notes ==

Michael: Created page with "{{navmenu}}

'''To Have or To Be ''' (date) is a book by Author Name.insert chicago notes ref, link to online version if available It [insert description with references to LP concepts where appropriate]

==Concept Map== ===Key Terms=== To Have or To Be > {{#ask:Is a key term::To Have or To Be|format=ul}}