Thank you for writing this. I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree with some of the havings vs beings. Alive, I agree with. There is still another action "doing" which might cover most of these beings. Each of these are very transient states of being (if they exist at all), which can cause problems with human consciousness and identity. If one wanted to view those as beings, one would have to be very careful to internalize them as temporary states that may change moment to moment. To take them as aspects of identity could cause all sorts of psychological pain.

What I am, and cannot help but be, is a living human with the baseline properties of a living human (assuming that should I die, my "I" is extinguished), who may strive to do actions that could be categorized as good parenting, but when I'm not doing that, am I a good parent? How many actions neutral or to the contrary are required to remove that state? If one were to live only in the moment, one might not be able to be any of those things because the activity of attention on the moment, in the moment, would eliminate all of those other beings, but during that moment, one would still be a living human with all of the baseline properties, on a different plane from any actions. That may be the distinction between being and doing. Possibly splitting hairs a bit, and one could argue to the contrary, but such a distinction could be important when attempting to apply a philosophy.