Deconstruction as an idea, in general, was on the right track, but let's take a closer look. Le mots ... them words ain't hollow shells into which you can freely infuse non-logocentric meat, or free 'em up from the shackles of millenia-old Logoi. Why? Because they're embedded deeply in chreodes of various morphic fields, they're entrenched like quarks in subatomic phaselock. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater, because you can't throw out the bathwater, per se, try as you might.
Never mind the idea of meaning, whatever your thoughts on the subject, because there is no meaning, there is no thing in general in the universe, which is independent. Reflect carefully and deeply; try and think of an independent thing, or phenomenon, utterly non-contingent. I'm not talking about independence with respect to contrastive context, I'm talking about the concept in and of itself. There simply is no such thing. No person is an island, they say, but I say, nothing is an island. Nothing whatsoever. Derrida's adage, "There is nothing outside the text" can only be true if and only if by text we are speaking of reality-as-such, the total interdependent interfusion and interpenetration of everything.
Such being the case, we come to the large context of text, i.e., the hypostasis of metaphysics beneath text, to the logocentric tyranny of paradigms. So what happens when the rug is pulled from human-made dogmatic constructions and conceptual schemes which are believed, unconsciously, to have originated in a space of platonic absolutes, that they have somehow made their ingression into history as such under the archetypal auspices of Logos, calling themselves science, religion, ideology, and so forth so on? A new paradigm?
Well ... how about we try something new, something novel, like the "aesthetic," non-ideological, self-effacing non-paradigm of Eros, resonance, and comedy? When you detect self-asserting failsafe memes kicking in, sit back, reflect, contemplate, and resonate; just say no to paradigms.