to be or to have?

a dear friend wrote me a thought-provoking and insightful mail the other day. while i still meditate on it, i thought some of you may like to read. i offer her (untouched) words to you here:

"I have started reading a new book about quantum thinking. There was a very interesting part about the distinctions between the ego and the real self. One of them was the distinction between 'to be' and 'to have'. It says the ego believes that the only way for it to be peaceful and happy is to have: to have power, to have knowledge, to have a girl/boyfriend, to have money etc. Without these it is not worthy. Whereas for the self it is most important to be: to be a loving person, to be sensitive, to be good, to be nice, to be trustworthy, to be knowledge itself... these are lasting qualities, when they are acquired once, they won't go away. Even if the conditions change, 'to be' will always stay... I was really influenced by this statement... I guess it should be our aim to focus on 'to be'..."