The Trace Odyssey 1. Beatrice Galinon-Melenec

relationship between these terms has already produced a significant number of publications, the most essential of which can be found in the References section. Controversies, sometimes very lively ones, among certain authors have provoked schools of thought.

      For our part, guided by the idea of exploring the complexity of the concept of trace from an approach that we see as interdisciplinary, we propose to study the trace as a result of the influence of an event on its environment/milieu²⁴. This choice allows us to state that all the consequences of an event can be considered as a trace, hence the evocative term conséquences-traces. This enables us to situate the terms “imprint”, “mark” and indice in relation to the term conséquences-traces.

I.8. Need for agreement on terminology

In this book, we seek to test the acceptance of the terms “imprint”, “mark”, and “indice” as subsets of the “trace” class. This brings us closer to the statements of the Dictionnaire historique de la langue française (Rey and Hordé 2006)²⁵. The propositions, whose usefulness²⁶ we examine with regard to the situations analyzed, are:

       – the imprint27 is the conséquence-trace that we look at from the angle of a shape or material with a certain durability. The imprint is a category of traces (consequence of an event) whose form and/or material have a certain duration28;

       – the mark29 is the conséquence-trace that we observe from the angle of the signifying differentiation. The mark is a category of conséquences-traces that constitutes a recognizable sign, distinctively and meaningfully30 identified;

       – the indice31 is the conséquence-trace that we observe in order to identify what happened in the past. The indice is a trace category (consequence of an event)32 to which a cognitive interpreter associates an indexed causal inference with a scenario33.

      In all the above cases, it is the anthropologically centered trace, that is to say a part of reality where humans recognize the process that engendered them in the more or less recent past, or that engenders them still (through actions in the present that have conséquences-traces later on, e.g. “managing one’s own digital traces).

In all these cases, the interpreter is a human being, i.e. an Homme-trace, endowed with a corps-trace that opens the person up (and closes the individual off) to the space of the senses.

I.9. Objective of The Trace Odyssey: following the trace interpreted as a consequence

      As was mentioned previously, we seek to study the facet of the trace that assimilates it to that of its consequence³⁴.

      To show the scope of such a choice, we present a generative path of the meaning of the conséquence-trace by considering it in a systemic dynamic between an individual and reality, and/or between individuals, the whole placed in interactions situated in space and time.

      We are aware that by restricting the work of this approach, we limit the analysis of the complexity of the concept of traces ontologiques³⁵. It should therefore be seen in the light of the other works in the Traces set of books³⁶ and in the perspective of the Palo Alto movement, where the concept of trace is found in the analysis of everyday communication situations and their conflicting interpretations, such as those described by Watzlawick et al. (1979) in the case of interpersonal communication.

I.10. Confronting points of view

In Figure I.2³⁷, below, cause and effect can, a priori, illustrate a simple causal relationship: a behavior of X (the husband) is considered to provoke the response of Y (the wife). The case of the interviewed couple expresses their disagreement on the place of X and Y in the cause-effect relationship. X and Y carve out the succession of cause-effect relationships differently, leading them to produce divergent points of view. Watzlawick et al. (1979) show that it is a question of punctuation, of different choices in carving out the sequence of interactions.

      Take a couple struggling with a marital problem [...]. The husband contributes to it with his withdrawal and passivity, while the wife contributes with her aggressive criticism. When talking about their frustrations, the husband will say that withdrawal is his only defense against anger, the wife will qualify this explanation as a gross and deliberate distortion of what is “really” happening in their relationship. She criticizes him because of his passivity [...]. Their confrontations are reduced to a monotonous exchange of such messages: “I retreat because you are angry” and “I am angry because you retreat. (Watzlawick et al. 1979, p. 54, section 2.42, author’s translation).

      Figure I.2. Disagreement on the cause-consequence relation

      The sequence is repeated: the husband (arrow from 3 to 4) retreats, because his wife is bad-tempered (arrow from 2 to 3), and so on. The wife (arrow 2 to 3) is bad-tempered because her husband is retreating (arrow 1 to 2). Each one thinks that their behavior is the consequence of the other’s, which is the only cause. Thus, any communication sequence between two people is an interaction.

In the following chapters, we see that the differences in the way reality is carved out, depending on the individual, do not only apply to interpersonal communication. They are found in all the “capta” of the reality, constructed from “points of view” based on the analysis of the difference in the orientation and focus of attention³⁸. This leads to changing the point of entry in the reception of reality that each individual has.

      The “points of view” of some can always be questioned by others, without however, these alone being able to cover the totality of reality, whose “character does not depend on what anyone may think” (Peirce 2002, p. 54)³⁹. We shall return to this later, based on the Indian fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

      NOTE.– The main theme of The Trace Odyssey questions the dynamic processes – linked to traces – that lead to different interpretations of the same reality.

      Figure I.3. The human–robot relationship: individualities of a different nature (source: Galinon-Mélénec 2018). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/galinonmelenec/traceodyssey.zip

The example illustrated above by the conflict between husband and wife is frequently found in human relationships. That having been said, what about in human–robot relationships?

      As we see in the following pages of The Trace Odyssey, even when the relationship is fluid, it is important to bear in mind that, as shown in Figure I.3, the two individuals are not of the same nature. Their “corps-trace” do not carry the same life history. A human being is part of the history of hominids – which includes all the experiences of living beings – whereas robots are part of the history of machines with artificial memory. The human body is far superior and more complex in its functioning compared to that of a machine, if only because of the emotions, affect and pain that intervene in reaction to the stimuli a person receives.

      The Trace Odyssey explores the consequences of this human–robot relationship and provides an opportunity to demonstrate that:

       – human–machine interactions produce traceable conséquences-traces in both;

       – the robot, because of its different nature, can only substitute human beings in cases where the task transfer does not present a probability of risks that is greater than its