Unfortunately, I fear that deconstructionists and eternal rebels will be with us until the end of time.

No one said all humans have to make sense. Apparently, most of them don’t. But it warms my heart to be a member of the Catholic Church–ironically (at least to some), it is the last bastion of reason in a world descending into chaos.

Then I consider — is it really true? Does deconstruction have such a meaning that we can say that these two meanings of this polysemeous term are different?

Then I remember that the deconstructionist is a man who considers all human communication to be radically indeterminant — and still leaves a message on the answer message for his wife, asking for pepperoni pizza.

(You might find this interesting.

What you say may be true, but it raises yet another question. Is the deconstructionalism of Derrida’s followers the same as that of Derrida himself? I would argue no.

Using deconstruction to pick apart novels and such is completely different from being suspicious of all meta-narratives (over-arching stories, like salvation history, through which we view smaller stories), claiming that differences between people should be abolished and preserved (how?), and arguing that the meta-narrative of deconstructionalism is exempt from its own suspicion of meta-narratives.

Deconstructionist principles could be applied in certain domains without any logical contradictions arising to overthrow them, but when deconstructionalism is restricted to a mere local, rather than global, application, can it be said to still be true deconstructionalism?

Like John Gardner, talking of Deconstruction in fiction, who writes that if to create is the first human impulse, then to correct is the second.

But once you get that far, you get people saying the point of deconstruction is to put things together again, better.