When discussing the duality or opposition between having and being, usually points up differences, forking paths within a logical historically constructed.
The premise of BE lasted long, connecting the human deities, the superiority of spirit existence as a transcendent, metaphysical, heavenly.
On the other hand, the term TO HAVE with the strengthening of reason, the Enlightenment and bourgeois ideas, with the development of knowledge, science and technology, led the man to a more earthly, immanent materialist and liberal about life.
The conflict was then! Having or Being? Life as an object of pleasure and purification for contingency or an afterlife? A balanced life or simply attached to earthly delights?
For a point of view, then we would say so contextualized that the creation of two opposing parties and significant centralities can create the illusion that the choice is inevitable, and that the road must be traveled in one hand.
You have to absorb, on both sides, values ​​required for our lives and the satisfaction of our happiness. The BE feeds on TO HAVE and vice versa, you can not mark our existence unless we have concrete confirmation contributions. In other words, the abstract without the concrete is lost completely, as codes are differentiated and complementary to understanding people.
The dialogue between TO BE and TO HAVE is imperative, it is up to we balance these two forces within our social relations, work, spiritual, among others. Reaching this balance in a context ultramodern, ultra-high dynamicity is not easy, so we live constantly involved in emotional conflicts, identity and behavior.