many futures

many futures,

so many futures,

yet all presenting in much the same way.

maybe it's not about the futures

as if to be viewed and lived alive.

maybe it could be about 'why',

as if why would always 

and inevitably lead to 'how'.

'why' can be asked

as if separate from 

but interested in.

'how' may make a stronger 

and more self-involved demand.

'why' can ask why is there a future

and never have to leave it's current frame of mind.

for we can claim all sorts of potential narratives

upon which we take our experiential touristy selves

and venture into it as uncommon, 

or as the previously unknown.

where 'why' makes lots of assumptions,

'how' will eventually demand

an introspection to occur.

even for how would we go about thinking, 

about a this or a that

and then topically claim a future?

let's for how's sake,

question the assumptions made.

the biggie in the assumption is, of course, time.

does time really exist?

how ponderous is that statement?

so if time was of our conceptual making

then we have a lot of apparatus and skills

that ordain nothing of interest

for where we say we want to go

or even how we would want to be,

say, once we so-called get there.

why is just fashionable reasonings.

how demands a process

and a sense of integrals that would have to apply.

many futures are only through the looking glass of how.

and in that process, 

one could stumble upon a reasoning

that asks how does the future exist?

what would future be like if …..?

so does future actually exist for human consumption?

where does future come from, 

beyond our method of assumptions?

surely we can be consumed by a past,

but that is really all currently conjecture revisited.

we haven't yet really been able to penetrate

nor actually occupy the now,

and yet we have this investment in the future.

I have a sense 

that if we could actually penetrate 

and fully occupy the present,

the whole time game would be a bust.

there would be a dimensional collapse 

of time as we currently claim it.

and how the now would be working,

would profoundly displace our temporal occupancy

of past, present and future.

we really don't possess methods of now occupancy.

surely we are in and of the now,

but not authentically capable of consciousness

in that light.

we are forever in immediacy right after the now has left.

we were really there, 

but not consciously of it.

all we have is an experiential partial gloss of an account

and yet we claim now as being present,

which means,

as long as we agree to agree about this,

then now is where we were at,

when we talk about it afterwards.

experience is ever the sales-rep for that.

and yet from where we look outward for, 

quote…. 'now',

the future seems like 

really a worthy invest . . .