deconstructivism

My understanding of Deconstructivism is somewhat superficial due to my sole exposure to the theory through Gehry, Hadid, Lebeskind and the like, and will be significantly improved upon through discussion. The first point made by Benedict that really resonated with me, and began the theme of contradiction is that “the fullness of Nature- which includes human nature an language- exceeds language’s capacity to report on Her” was a nice affirmation that there is no way to fully explain anything. I feel this is incredibly significant when speaking of architecture because we can do so much talking and theorizing and criticizing about architecture, but I feel that ultimately there is no substance unless it is experienced. Moving to the explanation of Derridean concepts, différance is a complicated term and though it has multiple meanings, the idea that something can not exist without its opposite was very interesting. Most significantly the contemplation of glass, its “presence/absence”, and meaning in architecture really resonated with me. Also the following observation about students asked to create a cube:
“But the lesson leaned is always this: the cubes closest to extinction, the ones most minimally indicated or most intensely undermined, questioned, or obliterated, had greatest presence. The held our interest and were really there. But the ones most declaratively formed, most sharply set and materially present wer nice by babal by comparison, to the point of effective invisibility: absence.”
This I feel is a principle at the base of deconstructivism. Am I wrong? Perhaps a bit superficial, but this passage is has much to do with what I see in the theory.
Now we move even further into contradiction, which I understand but makes me slightly uneasy. I understand the need for opposites and opposing forces, but I don’t believe the amount of contradiction present is necessary. Architecture, being what it is, is “suspended in a dire balance of opposites”. The example of Le Corbusier contradicting the expected usage and form of the roof, relationship to sky and ground, and his use of pilotis and horizontal windows (“strips of absence”) was very well understood and appreciated. However, the contradiction found in Villa Savoye is understandable and appreciated, where the contradiction of Lebeskind or Eisenman is pushed to the extreme and are “just this side of intelligibility”.