{"word_count": 6105, "character_count": 38958}
Introduction: the role of the Trace in our relationship with the worldOne of our major areas of research concerns the study of interpersonal relationships in real-life situations. We concluded that the relationships were the result of interactions of "signes-traces". The epistemological questions associated with them and the results1 obtained led us to believe that other disciplines should be associated with an interdisciplinary dynamic concerned with the question of traces. However, right from the initial attempts, it emerged that differences in the meaning of terms presented an obstacle to cooperation. Consequently, we shall provide some guidelines concerning the notion of Trace2.Traces and sustainable development of the human speciesWhen conceiving the future of the human species, it appears essential today to understand how it fits into the ecosystem with which it interacts. For this purpose, examining traces of the past plays a central role because it is an opportunity to take a look back in time. The older the traces are, the more their presence today can serve as a problematic of sustainability. There is a close correlation between the two notions of "Traces" and Duration.New discoveries relative to traces left by humanity’s history and life on earth come to light each year. There appears to be an increasing number of connections which are so close that they might possibly represent only part of the relationships between this evolution and the birth of the universe. They prompt us to conclude that life developed out of inanimate matter and that the first living beings were single cell organisms. Today one can trace the evolution of living things as they take us from one stage to the next (cells, plants and animals) to present-day humans3. Bringing "visibility" to the stages of the relationship between the evolution of the human body - in particular its brain - and what surrounds it has produced some classifications among which figure homo erectus and homo sapiens.In the 20th century, palaeoanthropological discoveries opened up new perspectives. Traces of human evolution could be tracked over about 4 million years to the present day4. This led us to propose (2011) a new transversal definition of eras: a human is fundamentally an Ichnos-Anthropos, an "Homme-Trace"5. They can be defined in the following way: Humans, who have been part of History for several millennia and in a multi-scale, multi-dimensional space, can be defined as "L’Homme-trace" since they are the product of their history – their own and that of the generations before them – they are both "un construit de traces" ("a construct of traces") and "a producer of traces". The two dimensions operate in a complex system of interactions (Galinon-Mélénec, 2011, 2013)6.At the time of writing this article (March 2014), the media publish information : the astrophysicists who have been searching for traces of a fundamental wave responsible for the origin of the universe think they have perceived a fossil vibration of the universe. It appears to be the oldest trace of the world’s early development to have been discovered7. It is important to take account of the fact that is, from the moment it was assumed that the Universe began with the Big Bang, followed immediately by primordial waves8. We will return later to the process underlying the new sky-map9.Thus, palaeontology and astrophysics are making considerable advances in what we know about humanity and the history of the universe. Their progress, in conjunction with observation of traces, shows how fundamental the question of trace is for the representation humans have of themselves and their place in the universe. This journey into history is equally relevant as it makes it possible to attempt to conceive human sustainable development.Furthermore, building on the ever increasing capacities of technology, research is making great strides in a number of major fields of knowledge including that of the human body (molecular genetics, genetic transmission, the brain, etc.).All these discoveries, just like those that came before, have contributed to developing humans’ responses to the great metaphysical questions about the origin of humanity. Despite its importance, this dimension will not be discussed in our article.Using the recognised traces as a foundation, we shall simply attempt to show that a human is fundamentally an Homme-trace and that the interactional process of traces between human beings and milieu can be observed in any culture, at any time and in any place. This places the issue of trace in a general perspective; but insofar as our questions concern in particular the interpretation of trace by humans, the research falls within the province of anthroposemiotics10.Introductory definitionsThe "traces processuelles"Regarding the relationship between human beings and the real, we posit that a human is confronted with a reality existing externally to him/herself: reality existed prior to humans. Today’s reality has come about through evolution. All evolution is a process. The process leaves a trace that we call a "trace processuelle" (a processual trace11).With respect to the view that is ours today, we will focus on the processes that produce the trace, i.e. that all the examples will be given with the purpose of illustrating one aspect or other of the process. The subsequent presentation should not obscure the fact that it is not an exhaustive list nor that they form together a complex dynamic.The "traces of the cultural evolution"Astrophysicists ceaselessly watching the sky bear within them traces of knowledge that differ from that of the Sumerians who observed the heavens in order to understand the universe of the gods (SOUCHIER, 2013)12.In order to hunt traces in the sky, astrophysicists have all the observational tools needed that also bear the traces of evolution. In this example, the skills of both (human and technological) combine to keep on tracking the primordial trace.The "trace incorporées" ("embodied traces")An individual’s body (in particular his/her brain) carries the traces of his/her history and consequently what came before: its genetic, cultural, individual and social history. What can be seen here is that the trace issuing from history is embodied. We call this the "embodied trace" ("trace incorporée")13.Bodies are able to perceive their surroundings. Their “embodied traces" sort out their perception. Humans are not aware of all the traces inscribed in their bodies and of this selection resulting from processual interaction. They need to be informed.The "perceptual traces"The way in which observers break down reality depends on their history and the traces processuelles inscribed in their bodily matter: discerning an object or person, selecting one sign or another, corresponds to reciprocal activation processes of traces.“We can represent nothing as combined in the object without having previously combined it ourselves” (E. KANT)14.Our theory is that the manner in which individuals fragment what is real by selecting only fragments of this continuum of traces differs from one individual to another. The result of this relationship is that the sign is a trace of interactions of previously produced traces15.The consequence is that the meaning an individual gives to information he/she perceives from outside is what we call a "signe-trace" of embodied traces. The best known example relative to the effect of these "embodied traces" is the role of language, of learning and of knowledge in perception. (KORZYBSKI, 1951; BATES, 2005)16.The signe-traceIn our paradigm, when the trace is identified as a trace, it becomes a signe-trace and, "If any sign is, in fact, a "signe-trace", a trace is not necessarily a sign"17.Indeed, if reality (the entire universe) is defined as a complex referential inaccessible to humans as a whole, and if the universe is evolving (thus leaving in the matter and in the universe the traces processuelles of this evolution), it must follow that humans have access to only fragments of the real. The fragment selected by an individual represents what a human calls a "sign". However, the selection and interpretation of the sign is filtered and processed by the brain according to the "embodied traces" which are also the traces processuelles of its history.The same sign selected by two individuals thus cannot lead to the same signal for each one. The way in which an individual transforms a sign into a signal is also a signe-trace (the signe-trace from the embodied history of the one who does the interpreting). The trace inscribed (in the brain) will not be the same either.Invisible tracesThere are traces of the evolution of the world which have not yet been discovered by humans. Only what we call "signes-traces" are recognised as traces. Many traces exist that are invisible to humans. Their existence is based on general hypotheses such as the one described above on the genesis of the universe, the traces processuelles and residual traces that should logically ensue. We shall return later to the reasoning by abduction which is the foundation of this reasoning.It should first be noted that the absence of material traces can be interpreted as "traces processuelles", for example, in the case where logically the material trace should be found (e.g. fingerprints on a door handle) but where there is none. This absence is the trace of a process of effacement18. However, to give it a signification (is it the act of a criminal or the cleaning lady?), other traces must be found that would connote the signification to be given to the former.To conclude this introduction, we claim that the notion of trace is to be found in a number of disciplines but its signification is rarely made clear. Yet there is a heuristic interest in opening up an epistemological discussion on trace to all disciplines but more particularly to those whose objective it is to conceive complex relationships between humans and trace, in other words, between humans and the real19, as will be explained below.This is the objective of the UNITWIN HUMAN-TRACE COMPLEX SYSTEMS20 which we founded. One of the major difficulties of this interdisciplinary research dynamic on traces is agreement on the meaning of the term trace. The aim of this article is to serve as a basis for exchanges for this very purpose."Trace": a general term with a variety of forms21Our approach is based on the interweaving of the different complex systems under study not only in the sciences of matter and life sciences but also in social science and the humanities, studies which have already enabled us to pinpoint several characteristics which could lead to an understanding of The universality of the trace (B. Galinon-Mélénec, 2011: 31-40)22.Perception of the real world and discontinuity23"Objects do not exist independently of conceptual schemes. We cut up the world into objects when we introduce one or another scheme of description" (H. PUTNAM, 1981: 52).In our "L’Homme-Trace" paradigm, we posit that the complexity of the real is inaccessible to the human mind. When a human distinguishes signs in a continuum of the real, it is the result of a sorting process; yet this process is linked to his/her history.An individual’s history is an uninterrupted continuity of interactions with a human and non-human environment. These interactions produce magma of traces inside the individual and they are themselves in continuous and constantly renewed interactions. As a result, when humans perceive the world, they have the impression that it is a juxtaposition of images emerging from a discontinuity whereas it is not a question of the world but their relationship with the world which is in fact a continuum. This question (of continuum) is not new. From the "natura non facit saltus" of Leibniz to the philosophical thought of Immanuel Kant, Poincaré and Peirce - to name but a few - the question of continuity played a central role in scientific and philosophical thought24.From our point of view, individuals do not perceive the real in strictly identical fashion, which is why it is more a question of an indetermination of what they perceive. In the sense that it is still currently impossible to penetrate inside an individual and attain knowledge of all the details of his/her perception and interpretation of the outside information thus perceived.It is all the more difficult in that what every individual perceives corresponds to what we call a "process of reciprocal activation of traces" that varies eminently from one individual to another inasmuch as what is perceived corresponds to the processes of reciprocal activations of traces25 between the individual and that which is outside him/her (the Other, the human but also the non-human).This definition marginalises the notion of a voluntary cut26 in the continuum. In our view, the relational system of interaction of traces that leads to the emergence of the signe is complex and not necessarily a conscious one. Conversely, one of its results – the signe which is the subject of a process of "semantisation"- is brought to an individual’s awareness27.Differences in terminologyDistinguishing between trace and imprintA distinction must be drawn between the terms "trace" and "imprint". The origin of the term "imprint" (originally as "emprint" – late Middle English) is from Old French empreinter, based on Latin imprimere, from in- "into" + premere "to press", whose original meaning (1250) was “to stamp (a mark or outline) on a surface”. The term "trace" covers a greater degree of general connotations and nuances. Our notion of trace includes the imprint that is a connoted trace of a more accentuated marking. On this basis, any imprint is a trace but a trace is not necessarily an imprint.The term "trace" is used in a variety of ways, which means it can include the infinitesimal or even the invisible. Let us take the example of homeopathy. During a lot of years, this alternative medicine based on successive dilutions that render the initial molecules undetectable by science without in any way arresting the effects. They are simply proof of the limits of human ability to see them (to transform them into signs), to read or interpret them. If they remain invisible, unreadable and not open to interpretation, there are traces that are not nonexistent nonetheless, as the effects on animals appear to testify. Now, the initial molecules are detectable by modern science.Trace, signe, signalAccording to the Dictionnaire historique de la langue française (The Historical Dictionary of the French Language), the term "signe" in French comes from the Latin signum, one root of which is secare meaning "to cut", signum originally being the mark made by an incision28. As an identification of the material discontinuity in the continuum of the real world, it is fully justified, therefore, to call a "signe" any sample taken from a part of this continuum.In other words, we posit that there is a preexisting continuum to our perception and what we call “Reality” emerges from a relational process between an individual and this continuum. In our view, any object is a relation. A relational process of reciprocal activation of traces occurs. It produces different accesses to the continuum. These "gateways" blend intuition with reason, more or less. It is our belief that the noumenon (the Entirety) is not accessible to human rationality29.The relational process operates cuts in the continuum of that which exists. This “portion of the world that comes to the attention of a cogitative system” (BATESON) is made by an "Homme-trace" which, as we have seen, carries in his body (including his brain) the traces (embodied traces) of his individual and social history (genetic, sensorial, experiential and cultural, etc.).These cuts are the subject of a language qualification – in the wider sense30 - by humans (object, information provided, signe, etc.). When human beings look at the world, they see only a part of it, thus dividing the world implicitly into sections since they cannot see it in its entirety. What has been unconsciously selected is therefore only a sign of the trace or traces that have remained inaccessible.What has been perceived as a sign by the human unconscious is then "digested" by the unconscious and processed by the conscious so that the sign resulting from the divisions and selections within the trace is no longer but a more or less faithful image of the sign, the distortion of which has transformed it into a "signal".The trace is of the order of the real, the sign that of perception and the signal that of interpretation. To put it another way, referring a trace to a meaning is only possible because there is an implicit temporal-causal relationship between the currently discernable phenomenon (the signe-trace) and a past phenomenon that is not necessarily discernable (the trace); the subjectivity of the signal interpretation of the sign (signe-signal) renders the meaning given to the trace uncertain.This dynamic process involves numerous direct systems (person, situation, etc.) and indirect ones (economic, cultural and scientific contexts, etc.).Human traces, corporeality, milieuTraces are inextricably linked to everything in motion, in particular to the life of any body31. Indeed, life32 presupposes exchanges that shape the milieu33, i.e. the close relations nearby that are themselves modified, albeit temporarily, by the living. It should be clarified here that the word "milieu"34, when it is distinguished from the word "environment", corresponds to the surrounding world, limited to what is likely to be in immediate interaction35 with the living."Those milieu-relations are not all the same for all species –meaning may differ quite radically between species, even those involved in the same ecosystem or interdependent in various ways" (WATSUJI TETSURO)36.Conversely, use of the term "environment" signifies a lesser proximity of interactions. The term milieu (mi-lieu) refers to what is merely halfway external to the human. It is not Man but it is not outside Man. They share an intimate relationship (SIMONDON, 1989)37.Conception of the relationship between a thing and human life falls within the province of what Augustin Berque calls médiance. What humans call objectivity in fact stems from a relational process.We posit that:Humans and Milieu never cease to mutually influence one another through a system of interactions of traces;By observing a milieu, signes-traces (signs of traces) of human existence can be identified.For us, these two dimensions are indissociable. Concerning technology, if it is recognised today that humans’ use of it leaves traces in their bodily matter – in their brain – the notion of milieu will be used when reference is made to its symmetrical and immediate influence on the technology itself, on its matter; both influences playing continuously and retroactively. Should this not be the case, the term "environment" is to be preferred.Upon an individual’s entering a space, it takes on a particular dimension when the space is qualified as territory38 by one or more individuals taking possession of it. When a body enters this space, it produces traces of its passage. If the traces have been perceived, they become not only signes-traces but also signes-signaux in that they are likely to be interpreted as a signal of intrusion triggering a reaction against the person regarded as an intruder.Where animals are concerned, any signe-trace of entry into "its" territory is more often than not felt as a signal of intrusion and causes reactions, some of which result in new traces that could be more or less persistent (excreta, smells, sounds, etc.). Confrontational behaviour is caused if the marked-out space is entered nonetheless. The perceived characteristics of these physical animal behaviours make up the signes-traces of belonging to the territory.With respect to humans, the basic process is the same. We say that its interpretation is indexed according to their history (both individual and social) which inscribes traces within the bodily matter and in particular the brain. These physical traces (including the sensory) form the basis of initiation into the reception and the interpretation."The experience of the affective trace of ‘my’ relations with particular others is preserved, again not as psychological memory, but as a reminiscence of the flesh" (E. LEVINAS, 1961)39.We would say, therefore, that:the bodily matter of an individual has embodied the traces of his/her history;although all the traces are present in the body, their existence can remain unknown to humans, particularly to the person concerned;when one of the traces is identified by an individual, it takes on the form of a sign; this trace becomes a "signe-trace";the signe-trace can be interpreted in a certain way by one individual and in a different way by another. The sign thus interpreted becomes a "signe-signal". At each stage of transformation by selection of a trace into a signe-trace and by interpretation of a sign into a signe-signal in order to ultimately bring about a behaviour-signal (comportement-signal), we are dealing with an interactive coupling of the traces peculiar to the individual concerned and those of his/her milieu.The echoing of sign-tracesIt has been seen that a trace can become a signe-trace for one individual and yet remain unknown to another. In other words, the existence thereof is likely to be contested by the second40.The role of psychic traces inscribed in the bodily matter (habitus)41 should be stressed: embodied (in-body) interactions of humans with their milieu produce psychic traces. These are externalised in the milieu in the form of behaviours and practices, "signes-traces" of embodied psychic traces. The transformation into a signe-trace occurs as soon as another body perceives it.Current research into neural imaging shows that the brain is activated even when there is no conscious attention (while asleep or in certain coma cases)42. There are therefore different levels of perception of the trace through reciprocal processes of activation. Some are invisible to the human but this does not mean they are not working. Consequently, we believe that each individual should be made aware of the overlapping of what is inscribed in his/her psychic memory and that which he/she perceives. Knowing that the process is common to all individuals43, it is to be hoped that this state of awareness improves the tolerance towards differences and with it the ability to live together based more on cooperation and less on conflict44.Similarly, it has been noted that the selection among traces of the same sign by two individuals can lead to a difference in signals according to how they are interpreted, i.e. to two distinct signes-signaux. In other words, the same signe-trace could be seen by two individuals as two completely different signes-signaux.The ex-post analysis of a communicative relationship can help to demonstrate that signes-traces have echoed one another. This echoing comes from interactions between signes-traces that are entwined in complexity. The nature of the relationship established cannot be reduced to the rational knowledge of the identity of the individuals and the communication frameworks. What underpins the relationship profoundly is taken to be a process whereby signes-traces are echoes of one another, the complexity of which is beyond explanation:"If you press me to say why I loved him, I feel that I can say no more than it was because it was he, because it was I. There is, beyond all my discourse, and all that I am able to say in particular, I know not what inexplicable and fated power that brought on this union." (MONTAIGNE M.,“Of Friendship” in Essays, 1580)45.The hypothesis of signes-traces echoing gives us the opportunity to clarify the processes that come into play between the two co-present people at the very instant the traces inscribed in both bodies are activated reciprocally, by following, in most cases, an unconscious selective process.For Levinas46, ethics must find its ground in an experience that cannot be integrated into logics of control, prediction, or manipulation47.Humans’ relationship with the realAs a consequence of the foregoing, if the scientific disciplines separately analyse milieu (natural, technical, political, sociological and cultural, etc.), they are merely bringing nearer, from a great distance, the reality of an "Everything", resulting from interactions between multi-scale systems. Multidisciplinary elements thus appear as the essential requirement of any scientist who places the real as being a result of interactions of complex systems. However, there are epistemological differences between disciplines which have turned out to be very difficult to overcome. In order to try to resolve the difficulty in an attempt to get closer to the complexity of multidisciplinary elements presupposes a reconsideration of several previously discussed points.Discovering the real, ontology48 and reasoning by "abduction"By using increasingly efficient technological tools49, scientists are seeking to make gradual progress in finding out part of what already exists which human senses and technical extensions have no yet access to50. However, if the captors in the wider sense of the term make it impossible for them to bring this existence to light, how do scientists presuppose to make assumptions about this existence? They use a variety of reasoning methods, including abductive51 reasoning.What is known as "abductive reasoning" is based on the formulation of hypotheses which, on the one hand, enhance the analysis of what they perceive and, on the other hand, provide evidence of what should exist if their hypotheses that were induced and their reasoning that was deduced were accurate. Abductive reasoning is one of the keys of scientific discoveries52.Of abductive argument:"According to Hanson, the abductive argument has the following schematic form:Some surprising, astonishing phenomena p1, p2, p3 … are encountered.But p1, p2, p3 … would not be surprising were an hypothesis of H’s type to obtain. They would follow as a matter of course from something like H and would be explained by it." HANSON 1960: 104)53.Of the background:"Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm" (KUHN, 1970).Of an "ontology of relations": In The New Scientific Mind, Gaston Bachelard says that, in modern sciences, "ontology of relations" had replaced the classical ontology of the substance (BACHELARD, 1934).Let us return to the example given in the introduction with a citation from the press in March 2014. On 18th March, the "leading magazine for scientific news" Pour la science writes "The team working on the American BICEP2 experiment announced on 14th March 2014 that they had detected for the first time the trace of primordial gravitational waves, produced during the Big Bang, terminating a 30-year-old quest"54. On that account, scientists were searching for a fossil tremor, the existence of which was still to be discovered following a scenario imagined by Andrei Linde in the 1980s to explain the origin of the universe. This trace was thought to be of an extremely rapid cosmic inflation over a very short period and existed before scientists made the hypothesis about its existence. This is what led them to concentrate their observation of the sky on finding the trace. As has been explained elsewhere, this approach underlines some of the facets involved in searching for a trace, namely: the interpretative presupposition, discontinuity and the temporal causal implicit (2011: 35-40).On 14 mars 2014, the media were informed that the first all-sky map of the cosmic microwave background radiation confirmed the standard model of cosmology. This information had changed the representation humans had of the world: "The universe one can see is in fact just a tiny part of the real universe. (…). This phenomenal inflation opens the imagination to interactions between every point in the Universe situated a thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of seconds later, millions of light years away from one another. This inflation could not have occurred without leaving traces of phenomenal fluctuations which necessarily generated this mind-boggling cosmic inflation. These are the oldest traces in the history of our world that seem to have been discovered."55Thanks to widespread media coverage56, attention paid to the existence of this trace has largely overtaken the astrophysical world. On this ground, as has been said, if it is confirmed, it will modify humans’ representation of their place in the universe. This is an important issue, so important that there might be a temptation to exploit the trace for illustrative purposes, to advantage the positioning of laboratories in a highly competitive scientific environment, turning it into a media show to feed the news, and so on. It triggers, therefore, irremediable controversies concerning the existence as well as the interpretation of this trace. A whole system is being established for the purpose of authentifying the reality of this trace, the causal relationship and the indexing of its signification. Hence the questions that arise concerning human capacities for receiving and interpreting a trace.From the trace to the "signe-trace". From the "signe-trace" to the "signe-signal"Everything that a human being perceives is a trace which makes a sign. We call this specific trace a "signe-trace" in order to distinguish it from an existing trace which has not yet been discovered by humans. This "signe-trace" is a "product" of interactions, a resulting "construction" between the real and its interpreter, and the indexical face of the sign that we call "signe-signal" is the result of a process of interactions of signes-traces: it is, in fact, the interactions (the relationship) that activate or deactivate the signe-signal face of the signe-trace.57The complexity of the notion of trace comes from the fact that everything happens simultaneously in interactions – relations - in multi-scale system. To obtain a clearer idea of the complexity, the processes that build the relationship between humans and reality and produce meaning must be made visible, must be taken apart, must be "deconstructed"58.The construction of social representations"The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality" (SAPIR E., 1929, p. 209).If the perception of the real is qualified as interactions of signes-traces, we can imagine that, when a signe-signal involves a large number of individuals, it is a question of progressive conformation linked to the internalising of social processes. In this paragraph, a different perspective is used in order to stress the complexity of the trace (JEANNERET, 2011)59, using analyses which have become familiar to researchers in the field of information and communication sciences. Furthermore, to show how humans can construct a social interpretation of the trace, another topical example is used below.Currently, in the spring of 2014, France is getting ready for the events commemorating the Great War of 1914-1918 and the Allied Landings in 1944. The objective of these commemorations consists of making the traces of the past visible by granting them special status: the consolidation of a collective memory. For demonstrative purposes, symbolic signes-traces will be performed. The relationship between the performance shown and the signification will be provided by a commentary, the intention of which will be grasped through analysis. New monuments will be erected and these monuments will become the "traces de traces" (the traces of traces) (BARTHES, 1980)60. Constructed intentionally in this way, the traces will take on the form of a material memorial inscription. They will be part of the formulation of a collective memory (HALBWACHS, 1950)61, a common heritage62 for the countries concerned.This display of commemorative events will be widely broadcast by the media. However, in the process of the social representation induced there still will remain an element of a particular individual process: each individual’s memory will sort the traces shown by the media. This sorting takes place more or less consciously. It constitutes a signe-trace of the individual’s past.The sorting process of mnesic traces is not specific to this situation. Indeed, what sort of memory would it be that expected to retain everything and never organise anything with the pretext of being constant to a past experience? If people had to memorise every experience encountered in life, they would be faced with an inextricable situation. Yet, humans need to fall back on a certain coherence to make decisions. This coherence is obtained at the cost of reductive methods of complexity: by reducing the volume and number of elements to manage, by classifying and arranging into different types of "boxes". People do this by carrying out processes of discretisation and breaking up the links of traces that they remove from their production contexts.Conclusion: towards a collective intelligence of the traceHaving stressed the issues of the trace in terms of human sustainable development and in order to achieve cooperation between disciplines to focus on this existential problematic, we have made clear where we stand in our epistemological research into the notion of trace.To this end, we began by distinguishing between the different uses of the terms trace, imprint, signe and signal, stating directly that, for us, if any signe is a trace, a trace is not necessarily a signe63. We underlined the importance of "traces processuelles" and their paradoxical effect: the absence of materially supported traces64 can be interpreted as the trace of a process of effacement.In order to convey the meaning of these nuances, we introduced new notions (signes-traces, signes-signal, etc.) which were then related to the anthropological definition of the Homme-trace and with his corporeality. We emphasised the role that echoing of signes-traces plays in the initiation of reception and interpretation: while recognising that between two co-present human beings, the bodily signes-traces echoing is a simple experience lived out in the present moment, we wanted to show that behind this apparent simplicity was hidden an inextricable interweaving of traces.We underlined the role played by all the sciences, including the humanities, in exploring this complexity. Research scientists are, of course, human beings like any others and their rationality is limited in relation to the complexity of the real65. Nevertheless, specific work based on a rigorous epistemological approach can legitimately hope to bring to the surface the role that traces play in fundamental questions humans ask themselves. From our point of view, given the universal role of traces, it is indeed essential today for as many scientists as possible to get together for this purpose. On that ground we felt it was necessary for us to clarify the presuppositions that have produced the homme-trace and signe-trace paradigms that we have put forward.Hence we explained abductive reasoning, because, even if it is well known to scientists, it is less easily identified by all those individuals who use it without realising it: the imagination and projections play an important role in the attention paid to traces.Having thus made clear the difference between the existence of traces in their objective reality and their perception by humans, we undertook a presentation of the process by which they are interpreted. As the disconnection between individuals and society is considered as an artefact, we then demonstrated the reciprocal influence of embodied traces (the individual body and social body) in face to face human relationships. We also undertook to set out to outline the role of the media in the construction of the representation of reality.Following this, the significance of an analysis into the ways in which the media exploit traces was demonstrated. This point is especially relevant since many individuals rely on what they find in the media (television, Internet, etc.) to prove that their interpretations of traces is beyond question.Finally, we emphasised how the process of trace visibility worked: we concluded that, in our view, it corresponds to processes of reciprocal excitation of traces, leading to what we call "the echoing of signes-traces" which itself defines the relationship.Demonstrating the relationship infers that the possibility of separation is but apparent: the "divisions" of the real made by humans to conceive the world, to talk about it and organise it into categories are essential to their development; yet they must keep in mind that the divisions that taxonomies constitute produce a certain fixedness in the representation of reality. There is a contradictory tension between the need for stability in representations and the progression in the access to understanding the complexity of the real.This notwithstanding, from our point of view, humans should always bear in mind that the notions of existence, of duration and of trace are closely linked and that inside as well as outside the individual, time does its work as a producer of traces.We have shown in this article how essential a role the interaction of traces plays. As a consequence, we invite the reader to:question what is the relevance of a one-to-one correspondence66 between traces and signe,develop a wider understanding of interactions and relationships between trace and signe, the role of relationality and interdependence in any situation,establish how these interpretations of the trace correspond with complex interactions.Trace after trace, the sciences have reconstructed the history of the universe and of humanity. And, the way in which human sustainable development is conceived depends on how the oldest traces are interpreted.Connecting the trace, its reception by humans and their interactions with the milieus that they are part of, at a given time and place in evolutionary history, means formulating the epistemological principles which underpin their analyses. In this context, there is no division of labour between science and epistemology.The e. laboratory on trace that we set up within the framework of Complex Systems UNESCO wants to pave the way for a “collective intelligence of the trace” where research findings complement one another, are modulated, deconstructed and reconstructed in the hope of generating a new method of apprehending the real.