I defined that past is -, and future is +, at Part2. But this interpretation means for the present admitting that future must be infinite to us, necessarily it could be correct at so our sensible future, but it must necessarily be so our all social time cognition, then necessarily that must be at premise that any individual's time should be abbreviated. However, in terms of philosophic view as heideggar interpreted is so complexed, wesen as German at meaning of being, we can interpret that we all are just mortal, then in terms of our each lifespan, that means any future is essentially + nor -. Toward them, now as being prersent at evidenced at least to our each myself, it must be +, because Descartes’s cogito as his main concept of to be as myself as human's evidence, it means either ontologic and epitemologic.
Then, if we regard our time so as infinitely everelasting, it means future is +, but simultaneously it means in terms of our own time, taking our near death at prespect into account of our philosophy, it means either 1- and +, in uncertainty. 

Eventually if we for the present ignore all public time scale, our future must belong to only uncertainty, if we interpret all universe's time, it must disappear at absorption into black hole, either it must never be at least absolutely +, then only now must be the sole convincing concept for our society and each our own myself at double meanings.

Just we analyze all data with statistics's view at our daily subjective object setting and using that index, future could be meant as opened aspect as infinitely +, so far.
In other words, between what we have expediently it,in terms of statistical indicator and our mind holding essential interpretation around ontologic view must have mutual gap. There, we can define that past and future at both mutually contrary intepretations, that just two of them must be together contradictory and imperefect. And ultimately at our daily observational view, only now must be obliged to be regarded as the sole certain indicator. Thus, that certainty must be not introspective, but very practical. Then its intepretation could not be absolute truth at least in terms of analytical philosophic skepticism. Nevertheless, in terms of ontological interpretation, only now must be absolute indicator. 
In other words, practical indicator and intrspective indicator must be at mutual gap and misaligned. Because practical in dicator must be used only for data outputting at missioned work and duty, then it must make past summery and for evidencing statisical index. Meanwhile, introspective view must include the focussing eyes only to past passed all driving anxiety to the future. Then if we apply former, we must agree now as not +, nor -, but if we apply latter, we must agree only now as +, on the other hand, to future we are obliged to be regard it as not +, nor -.

Namely either there, we must have slider rule, let us sommerize, next.

At practical missioned work index outputting usage, 
past -, now as present not +, nor -, only future +.
However, 
at introspective usage, 
past-, only now as present +, future + nor -.

Summary　⇓

Pr. →past-, now not +, nor-(uncertainty), only future+.

Intr. →past-, only now +, future not +, nor -(uncertainty).

In conclusion, our mission duty work index setting objective indicator must be neceessary at only optimistic, if we had no that indicator, we must have not copleted any job mission.
Toward it, or against it, we have either so philosophic view at midst anxiety, at that time, we need not optimistic, half pessimistic or kind of philosophically skeptic indicator. 

(to be continued)

Jan. 15th. 2021