It is equally misguided to treat the now and more real than past and future, since the now is only defined as the point where future crosses into past. The terminology is hopelessly corrupt and together with many of the other terms you commonly use to locate and designate experience can only deliver a vicious circularity. Try calling it being-experiencing, understanding it to embrace temporalisation without being limited by this term and its conceptual matrix. Then you can see that being-experiencing, including the seeing, has historical thickness without reference to duration or temporal seriality. There is another deeper toplogy which hold ineffable diversity in multivalent proximity. What you would call 'event', such as the entry into time and its progressive unfoldings as meanings, has a corresponding nature in being-experiencing for which no names are adequate. On one side such 'events' mark divergences which cannot be recuperated, creations of worls, but on the other side these are not divergences at all, the surface of being-experiencing being without marks.