Derrida: Differance and Cut Up_ Mandy

Paragraph 1:
I will speak, therefore, of the letter a, this initial letterwhich it apparently has been necessary to insinuate, here and there, into the writing of the word difference; and to do so in the course of a writing on writing, and also of a writing within writing whose different trajectories thereby find themselves, at certain very determined points, intersecting with a kind of gross spelling mistake, a lapse in the discipline and law which regulate writing and keep it seemly. One can always, de facto or de jure, erase or reduce this lapse in spelling, and find it (according to situations to be analyzed each time, although amounting to the same), grave or unseemly, that is, to follow the most ingenuous hypothesis, amusing. Thus, even if one seeks to pass over such an infraction in silence, the interest that one takes in it can be recognized and situated in advance as pre-scribed by the mute irony, the inaudible misplacement, of this literal permutation. One can always act as if it made no difference. And I must state here and now that today's discourse will be less a justification of, and even less an apology for, this silent lapse in spelling, than a kind of insistent intensification of its play.


Paragraph 2:
What we know, or what we would know if it were simply a question here of something to know, is that there has never been, never will be, a unique word, a master-name. This is why the thought of the letter a in différance is not the primary prescription or the prophetic annunciation of an imminent and as yet unheard-of nomination. There is nothing kerygmatic about this "word," provided that one perceives its decapita(liza)tion. And that one puts into question the name of the name.


Cut up:
situated in advance jure, erase or necessary to insinuate, can always, de of this literal reduce this lapse always act as time, although amounting to situations to law which regulate writing and keep its decapita(liza)tion. And of a writing the inaudible misplacement, be, a unique been, never will the course of difference; and to grave or unseemly, not the primary if it made a kind of that one puts What we know, I will speak, facto or de be recognized and its play. a kind of find it (according follow the most one seeks to ingenuous hypothesis, amusing. in spelling, and This is why nothing kerygmatic about here and now an apology for, would know if nomination. There is apparently has been a writing on prophetic annunciation of an imminent and this silent lapse pass over such permutation. One can word, a master-name. the mute irony, here and there, as yet unheard-of will be less initial letterwhich it that today's discourse it seemly. One gross spelling mistake, this "word," provided that one takes the thought of it were simply the discipline and a lapse in letter a, this do so in I must state prescription or the different trajectories thereby a justification of, in différance is to the same), Thus, even if there has never name. in it can insistent intensification of be analyzed each writing, and also a question here that one perceives know, is that of the word no difference. And into question the as pre-scribed by silence, the interest the letter a that is, to and even less therefore, of the in spelling, than name of the find themselves, at within writing whose certain very determined an infraction in into the writing or what we of something to points, intersecting with

My three sentences of commentary:
I think you can first of all see all the flowery words Derrida uses in his writing... some how this chopping up makes them stand out more to me. Secondly, it's just about as coherent/understandable as the original text (ha!). Lastly, the paragraphs I chose came from the very beginning and very end of his essay; I think he could've made his point a little quicker. :)