Now and Then...

All that we receive with our senses comes from the past, and everything we do only affects the future...
What I'm wondering is what do we deal with that is in the now?
What is 'is'? and, what is 'now'?
Will somebody tell me, because I would like to know...

"What I'm wondering is what do we deal with that is in the now? " Same thing we have being doing.
"What is 'is'?" The biproduct of chance and potential.
"what is 'now'?" The point your consciousness experiences in the fulfilling of this potential and chance.

This is a classic example of how the ambiguities of language can create problems which don't exist. The "now" must remain elusive by its very nature, because the label must always be applied retrospectively. It is an example of the reflexive fallacy: since the "now" is a concept about time that is also subject to time, its meaning must constantly shift. We can do the same to the past if we take it to mean everything that has ever happened, or to the future if we take it to mean everything that ever can happen (if we assume that every occurence is negation, that is, the exclusion of another state of affairs).
So the ideas of the past, present and the future are relatively unproblematic. It is their USE - and not their meaning - which shifts. The presumption of such a dichotomy constitutes a refutation of Deconstruction, which says that there is only use and that as such 'meaning' constantly defers. I say that it is the task of philosophy - whether it is ultimately a quixotic one or not - to fight against the bewitchment of the intellect by means of language. And in order to do so we must assume an unchanging, knowable, and residually Platonic discursive realm of some description, in accordance with which we are constantly trying to sculpt our language.

Does not the splicing appear to us in our perception...
Does not our calculation of what is definite depend on what we perceived of it...
Perhaps we are living in our past....

Is not the same thing we have been doing been working with the past...
Is not experience truly separated from chance and potential, as truth is from prediction...
Does not the experience of potential and chance take on a different form than what was predicted of it...

Is not the 'now' a very real thing which may be explained by the intensity of a past experience, perhaps...
Is there not a problem with the idea of time if we cannot clearly state what is 'now' and what is 'is' since they apply to everything we've ever experienced...

In retrospect, I think that what 'is' is the most intense, most recent experience we can have and the 'now' is in that time, which thankfully does cusp with the future as the feeling lasts a little while...

However we most probably only ever 'deal' with what is in the past as it depends seeing things in their place with our memory...

The only trick is that we may start to act while this feeling of 'now' is still being felt strongly although is most definitely from the past due to the action-reaction thing (that something must be known of before we can surely act in knowledge and in respect of what it was)...

I think that's it anyway...