When I thought of deconstruction, I thought of taking entire works, for example, and where you saw weakness, or an element you wanted to argue with, you could extract that point, and say that because of this one “flaw” the whole argument failed. Or, it was easier to study something that you took apart to it’s elemental components. I would run through an entire book, for example, and highlight or write my thoughts, then band them together, adding more thoughts or extracting things that weren’t connected eloquently, so what was left was the essence of the book, but also a “poem,” which I had written. An example of this was with a Kantian primer by Random house that I produced in 46 pages. It’s like a distilling process that if worked on for years eventually becomes something rich and fortifying. This too was my impression of Derrida’s theme. Thank you for clarifying. But, I do agree with Derrida. Everything, as Heidegger’s Being and Time suggests, is the essence of, well being and time. And you can tell what reality is by studying one moment. I did a photographic series illustrating this, which was included in a juried art show.