NewYorker - Derrida

The first thing that I thought of when I started reading this article was a link to deSaussure. We identify things by knowing what they are not. Thus, we are then able to compare and contrast, and to understand a difference between things. Derrida goes to further explain "To differ signifies nonidentity"(120) - which would definitely agree with deSaussure.
I was confused though when he was talking about difference and differance, because differance is not a real word. I was also confused about what he meant by temporalizing and temporalization.
But then he goes on to define the word differance - "differance is not simply active...it rather indicates the middle voice, it precedes and sets up the opposition between passivity and activity." (120). Here it seems to have created a binary stance - something that Habermas would agree with.
When he then speaks about the common and identifiable definition of 'to differ,' "the sense of not being identical, or being other, of being discernable," (124) this links back to when we spoke in class about previous knowledge builds on how we learn new things. Backgound also influences what people think of certain things. One person may think something is the same (like the taste of Burger King hamburgers and the taste of McDonalds's) while another person is able to recognize a difference. Same thing goes for many other examples such as recognizing shades of a color, a fake brand bag, etc. Also, common knoweldge comes into play when we recognize that a camera is still a camera even if it comes in different sizes or colors, or that a car is still a car even though there are different models, shapes, sizes and brands. So what's the difference?