What we remember from the past is called "memory "
=> It is more accurate to say: what is remembered PRESENT is called "memory". Or give me your definition of the past by carefully removing any component of the present; remove all present time from the past and tell me what is left of it?
For my part, I believe that without present there is no past or possible memories. The past is a memory of the present. Or, to put it better, the past is a present that appears to us in the form of memories. Imagine that I am on the road and that I pass a petrol station; I go beyond it, and when I remember it, it becomes part of my past, as it takes for me, the shape of a memory, but it is always present where it is. The gas station is not of the past as it continues to exist in the present, although in my memories it appears in the form of the past. A past that I recorded in my memory, in the present, as I passed by this gas station.
The memory is like a current replay, ie the present of a past event. There are no memories for a past person, but always for a person present. Just like watching a movie, you need a person who is present for the viewing, not who has gone. For what has happened is lodged in a memory, whereas what is present dislodges it. One can not, properly speaking, have any memory of the past; the memory is always the memory of a present moment.
The memory can be defined as "what reminds me of a present moment", just as when one goes on a journey and brings back a memory for example. The object bring will serve to relive in memory the instants that I lived in a particular present. I can not remove the notion of the present in my memories without erasing my memories. The present is necessarily eternally anchored. The past is only the form in which I have remained a lived present, and the memory is only a re-memory of this present in question.
Just as I can keep memories of a trip in the form of objects, photos or videos. I can keep memories of past moments in memory. And just as these memorabilia like photos are present in my hands when I look at them; the memories in my memory are also present in my memory as I look at them, as I remember them. When I think of time as space, the past fades away; there remains only the present. But if I see time as something flowing, all I can say is bound to be contradictory and arbitrary.
Keep memories in the form of objects (photos, videos, postcards, statues etc.) or in the form of memorized images (moments spent in love, moments of complicity with friends, moments with relatives or strangers, etc.). ), it's the same thing in principle. Both are very present objects that remind me of past moments in the present. There is only present in my memories. The past is what I mentally deconstruct to situate myself in space. But the past in itself is nothing. The present can be demonstrated everywhere, but the past can not be demonstrated anywhere. The past has logic only in a perspective of distance and space. The difference between the memories of the past, that is, the "objects that remind me of a present that has happened" and the past, is that memories are always present and exist, so there is no remembrance of the past, except by abuse of language, whereas the past itself does not exist, except mentally as a landmark in a given space.
When I pass by a gas station, I locate this gas station in a given space and not in a given time. Or I put it in an existing space, because I can locate the real existence of the space where I saw this gas station, but I can not locate the temporal existence of this gas station if it's not in my mind. Outside of my mind, time is not perceptible anywhere. No matter how much time I spend, this gas station does not move from where I got it. My memory has no effect on its present status in the place where it is. There is only my impression in my memory, more or less strong that gives me the illusion of a certain time: past near or distant past, as my impression is near or far. But whether this memory is strongly printed or not, it can only be a present memory of a time whose passage could only have taken place in the present. I can do nothing, I can never have memories of the past, but always memories of the present, memories of what is and not of what is not or has never been. But the past is no more; and we are not going to enter into this discussion now, but to say that it is no longer or is part of the past is like saying it never existed.
This is why it is inappropriate to speak as psychology does: "trauma of the past", or "childhood trauma". The pain of the slap that I felt during childhood is lasting the time of pain. Any emotional attachment is purely and simply an attachment to a dream, a superstition, but nothing real. It is more correct to speak of trauma experienced in a given space, and which does not leave this given space, if one must necessarily speak of trauma, a present space that has nothing temporal. Although the word "trauma" is inept. Since the temporal is nowhere else than in my head, when I abstract the present, the concrete, the real. Here again is the opportunity to break another magic formula of psys who want to make believe that the past does what we are, which is absolutely false, given that the past does not exist. We are what we are in the present, not as the result of an inexistent past, but as a mere visitor in a present space of which you are composed.
It is therefore time to end this scoundrel of science that is psychology, which misleads in error, illusion and lies good numbers of minds probably well intentioned but who remain gullible. Because, credulous it must be to believe these theories that are the kind of the whole psys branches.