If trauma is defined as an incommensurable experience or reality, then we can never ever really hope to use the logic of signification to interpret its meaning. How is it possible then to respond to traumatic memories if the fundamental presupposition of signification that semiotics, psychoanalysis, and structuralism all share in common no longer holds sway? Whereas in Chapter 4 our analysis of postmodern aesthetics and logic produced what Deleuze and Guattari might call an illegitimate disjunctive synthesis, in this chapter we will try to extract the sense of trauma by engaging the same synthesis in its legitimate form. The shootings of ten Amish schoolgirls and the community's response to this horrific event provides us with an important shift in focus away from either being an unrepresentable trauma figured as lack (void as content), or an uncompromising repetition of memory that refuses to forget a traumatic experience. The Amish response to the brutal killing of their children doesn't mask over the insurmountable difference trauma poses but, as will be argued, their response extracted the sense of trauma that emerges between appearances and copies, memory and history, all the while encouraging us to pose our question of traumatic memory in slightly different terms. That is, the question of what a traumatic event means or how it can be represented becomes redundant, because we no longer presuppose that a concrete experience or lived reality has to be represented in order to be real. The difficult question is now one of how the sense of trauma can be grasped in the absence of resemblance, imitation, or identification.