Oh Derrida

In Differance, Derrida states "differance is neither a word nor a concept" (279) and therefore it is neither sensible nor intelligible; it cannot be seen, heard nor thought. Yet, there would be no experience or thought without differance. Knowing what something is depends on knowing what it isn't. But, "differance is not, does not exist, and is not any sort of being-present" (280). From this, we can conclude that its absence constitutes its presence. I at first was confused by this and then I began thinking of differance as a paradox in itself. The words that are being merged are differ and defer. Yet, the word begs to be thought of as a concept of the "same". This sameness simultaneously allows there to be differences but because they are deferred, signs have no essential meaning. In other words, every word is defined by another word. And therefore meaning is not present within the sign, so signs only signify their relation to one another. And if signs only signify their relation, then they aren't whole signs, which is a combination of both the signified and the signifying aspects.