Deconstructing Deconstruction

It is a mystery, and it is a testament to the stupidity of the masses, that Derrida's odious uber-philosophy, parroted by a whole generation of drones and epigones, and trumpeted by the most ill-informed onlookers, should have established nigh-on unassailability in the world of the Humanities. It is doubtful whether such a ready army of non sequiturs and petitio principiis have ever been deployed in earnest; and I dare say that my posting a thread on this in the first place must be accounted a defeat.

My riposte is simple. What I see when I consider his principle of Differance is the dubious assumption that words are like physical objects, in the sense that, in order to be what they are, there must be a fixed frame of reference. (This was called, in physics, the ether; that is, until Michelson and Morley's famous experiement in 1886). This is the sense in which words are contingent: they defer for their significance on the interpretive matrix in which they are lodged. But this matrix is composed of yet more words: so the deference must go on forever. Is this problem decisive? Well, no. For the determination of a word begins with pyscho-physical processes which causally, and over a great deal of time, fix meaning. So my conclusion is that words (parole, to use De Saussure's term) ARE like physical things, or rather are parasitic on them - but the infinite regress never gets off the ground if we say that the universe is infinite.