Zafer Aracagök Decalcomania, Mapping and Mimesis possible response to an applied oscillating signal, esp. when its inductive reactance balances its capacitative reactance.2 Definition of resonance, as one can follow in the entries above was modeled, at least initially, on a relationship between a source and another object on which this source acts upon, say, as in a relationship between a model and a copy: obviously a definition which is heavily predetermined with positing the source as the origin of resonance. However, with the unfolding of the quantum theory,3 there arises, in contrast, a second definition which replaces the first definition by distributing the privilege of being the source or the origin of resonance among all the objects, thereby eliminating the question of the source from its privileged position. One also observes in the second definition that each object, without the necessity of an originator, is always already in vibration, and resonance is what happens between those vibrating multiplicity of 'sources.' Deleuze refers to a concept of resonance,4 especially in The Logic of Sense (2003), whenever it is a matter of defining a relationship between 'two series/ or, developing a strategy against the return of the Hegelian dialectics so that any moment of 'aufhebung' is avoided. One question to be raised here is whether the distribution of this concept of 'resonance' in the philosophy of Deleuze functions as it is supposed to function. And, if so, does he want us to presume that it is this second definition of resonance that he has in mind whenever he refers to this term in order to explain, say, the relationship between model and copy in a simulacrum,5 between singularities,6 between chaos and the image of thought, between bodies and events, between actual and virtual, etc? 2 All entries on "resonance" are from OED online. 3 1 am indebted to Arkady Plotnitsky and his work on the development of quantum theory, and the detailed account he gives of the debate between Einstein-Schrödinger and Bohr-Heisenberg (see for example, Plotnitsky, The Knowable and the Unknowable: Modern Science, Nonclassical Thought, and the Two Cultures [2002] and Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology After Bohr and Derrida [1994]) which throws light on the question of resonance that I elaborate upon in my book project on Deleuze. 4The word, "to resonate/' first appears in The Logic of Sense on page 56 as follows: " '.. . how are we to characterize the paradoxical element which runs through the series, makes them resonate, communicate, and branch out, and which exercises command over all repetitions, transformations and redistributions?" Later again on pages 66, 179, 226, 228, 232, 239, 261, 283, Deleuze refers to "resonance" as the principle of the relationship between 'two series/ 5See, for example, Appendix 1 "The Simulacrum and Ancient Philosophy" in The Logic of Sense, where Deleuze uses a term, 'internal resonance' in order to explain the relationship between series (261). "Between these basic series, a sort of internal r...

Passing now from the genus to the species, I have to denounce as the most inexcusable and scandalous noise the truly infernal cracking of whips in the narrow resounding streets of towns; for it robs life of all peace and pensiveness. Arthur Schopenhauer 1 0.Or rather, what did Schopenhauer hear when he was disturbed by the cracking of whips and decided to write about noise? What was it so disturbing in the cracking of a whip? A philosopher from whom Nietzsche borrowed immensely and forced this borrowing to a point of distortion. A philosophy of noise? Yet, is it possible to philosophize about noise? Did Nietzsche philosophize about noise?'On Din and Noise' 2 by A. Schopenhauer -a rare essay in which a serious philosopher, a philosopher of the will, seriously gets involved in noise and philosophizes about noise. A question of resonance between the cracking of a whip and the will of the philosopher. And also a question of resonance between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche: two types of resonance.The first type of resonance is about the tension between a philosopher (his resistance) and the interruptive power of the cracking of a whip. Whereas the resonance between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer is a catastrophic event and it gives way to distortion; and, moreover, its giving way to distortion is not something that can be addressed to 'perception' in the Schopenhauerian sense of the word. Already in Nietzsche's first book, The Birth of Tragedy, it is not something which takes place as something visible or audible.This type of resonance between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is the one with which I would like to put this essay into resonance.In other words, I would like to remix in this essay what was already remixed by Nietzsche -that is, Nietzsche's remix of the Schopenhauerian tension between will and contemplation into a relationship between the Dionysian and the Apollonian -by way of reintroducing into this remix the question of the hearable. Finally, I will claim that it is one of these two types of getting into resonance which lays bare a certain understanding of noise, and which also forces Schopenhauer to the claim that he heard the noise.

The broken hermaphrodite who trusted herself alone finds the room in reality teeming and begs never to wake from the nightmare. 1

No abstract

No abstract