Locke and Derrida

I wonder what would happen if we got Locke and Derrida in a room together. Locke seems to embrace the fact that there is no end to interpreting things, while Derrida seems to be stuck with the present moment of understanding, when he doesn't think that we can understand something in the present, seeing that it's constantly becoming our past. Much like Asch, Derrida sees differences as two entities in which one entity is considered "the other." There is a negative and positive connotation to each side of a meaning where one must come out on top as the victor. Words aren't given meaning by themselves, they require another word along with it so we can say, for example, "good is different than bad because they are opposites and bad is negative, so good must be positive." Now, I'm clearly speaking in basic elementary terms here, but binaries are very important to speech and writing. But Derrida argues that binaries aren't all that matters, and I would have to agree. Words can still be similar, though they have different meanings, and they don't have to be opposite. Locke and Derrida both are fixed on the signals and referent systems. Locke wants to simplify language and make it so the same word can't have different meanings and different words can't have the same meaning. It's in those distinctions of words, however, that Derrida notes words have signs and those signs are what creates the meanings, regardless how similar the words may seem.