000ooo000ooo Derrida

Derrida was definitely one of the most difficult theorists for me to read so far. I think part of the problem was the translation from french to english and the fact that a lot of the connections and conclusions he came to in french didn't exactly translate to english in a way that was easy to understand. Regardless of a language barrier, I think differance is a very difficult idea to understand because like the thoughts of Barthes and de Saussure, who Derrida draws from, he is talking about very abstract ideas that are difficult to visualize, put into context, or find meaning in.
Because I was having trouble understanding Derrida I looked online for some study-guides and summaries of his writing to try and better understand "differance". In my search I found a quote that I feel sums up postmodernism as a whole as well as Derrida's idea. After presenting "Differance" an audience member said, "It is the source of everything and one cannot know it: it is the God of negative theology." To this Derrida replied, "It is and it is not." Welcome to postmodernism.
While I find this type of answer extremely frustrating and difficult to learn from, I think that in the context of Derrida's essay it says a lot. It's hard to argue with Derrida's propositions because any time you start to define a word you have to use other words and you either use a synononym or an antonym. Antonyms, or what the word is the "opposite" of are usually most effective because synonyms require "its like a ______ except..." and then the difference, since very few words have exact synonyms. However, I would challenge Derrida's idea that our thought processes require this sort of thinking. When someone says "cow" I don't think of everything that is not a cow and the different things that make up a cow, I just picture a cow. Granted it's not the same cow everytime, but I just think of a cow, nothing else. I do understand though that everybody would have their own idea of "cow", even if it essentially the same thing, and perhaps this is what Derrida means when he talks about how meaning is always deferred. This could also relate to tmesis because you never know what a particular person's perception of a particular word will be.
Another disagreement I have with Derrida is that people see speech as being in some way above reading as a form of communication. Maybe they do that in France, but I have never felt that way in America. I think most people see speech as a casual method of communication, for conversations or watching TV, while the written word is formal and official. When we make formal agreements with other people we don't just promise, we write a document and sign it. When someone has something important to say they don't go on the radio or give speeches, they write a book - and if they are on TV or speaking its just to promote their book. Perhaps this point went over my head - as I'm afraid a lot of this essay did - but for now I have to disagree with Derrida that speech has been given appreciation over the written word.