Education of the memory from the literature: past, (re)interpretation of the present and the memory as training praxis

The article presents an analysis of memory in its relation to time and history, from the perspective of contemporary narrative. Taking as a starting point literary works of key authors for the work, such as Cortazar, Borges, Fournier, among others, from the concept of memory it is stated that, from the creation of literature, this idea along with that of time, both are articulated to the idea of the historical fact as past, but taking the latter as a future that flows into the concrete present that is projected into the future as an existential unit, not only of literary characters, but of the memory lived as a present experience. That is why this concept and its praxis play a transcendental role for the formation of human life, this time seen as a project, through literary creation, since it starts from the Bergsonian idea that, if the literary work wishes to be authentic, the author must expose himself as a unit in his feeling as a human being and in the creation itself. According to the analysis made to the authors brought to the study, the researchers manage to link the concepts memory, time and history; these ones, in their experiential amalgamation as an experience, give meaning to the materiality of life not only of the characters involved in the argument, but to their generalization as part of the human social experience. The narrative presents these concepts, according to the researchers, as part of the unit that is the human, an issue that is present in the arguments of philosophers, narrators and historians that were used as pertinent for the study, such as Borges, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Bergson, among others. Through a hermeneutical analysis of the fundamental work for the article, it is understood with Heidegger, for example, that, if one wants to live life, if the 'being' wants to 'be-together-with' (Mitsein from Dasein), one should stop looking at the past as history, and feel it as part of a flow of experiences that are born, in the past, but that are accentuated in the present, and are projected into the future as becoming without end. It is a continuous time in memory as a way of being of Dasein. Likewise, it is argued with Nietzsche that memory as history is useless for life, because if one wants to feel this, it is unnecessary to look at the past unless one wishes to disassemble oneself from the real human experience; that is, we are facing a continuity of the experience. It is thus possible to see the relationship between the times lived, those that are lived and those to be lived, finally considering that memory is certainly a human dimension, but that, in its relationship with time, it is lived as a continuum; that is, as a temporary unit formed by past, present and future. However, at the end of the argument, the past counts as the livelihood of the present life but also as a projection of future life (Pena, 2019), so it is concluded that the works analysed allow us to establish the course of temporality present inseparably from life itself. Without past there is no present, just as without it, there is no future. This allows researchers to rethink the issue of temporality in everyday life because individual life is combined with social life thus constituting a constant flow of living. Finally, the article establishes that memory is a fundamental dimension of formation in life, since, being Bergson at the right side, every work is part of the author's own temporality that creates it, and therefore, memory, as part from this temporality, permeates human life from the sense of its existence