The absurd, deconstruction, and subjectivism

I can't help but think absurdism, deconstruction, and subjectivism are inter-connected as philosophies. Deconstruction essentially leads someone to realize everything has a start point, or postulate people just accept to be true despite that in order to prove or disprove the postulate, it requires a paradox. For example, the postulate of "My senses/perception are/is accurate and true" is a postulate in that it is the very first claim someone can make in order to make further claims (i.e the existence of other things). However, to prove or disprove that statement requires those same senses/perception. Thus deconstruction would lead to that postulate if we break down just about any argument that something "is" unless one is claiming "the mind is/exists". At any rate, if deconstruction leads to that, then it would lead to the conclusion of subjectivism in that one can't prove things objectively exist(or don't exist for that matter). This can lead to absurdism, as one would come to a realization of the absurdity of living through life, acting as though every certainly exists(we all do after all) even though we can't prove them to from a philosophical standpoint.

Thoughts?

If someone starts with "[my] senses are [generally] correct" I don't see that this leads to any absurdity. My sense can be fooled, but I can ask my neighbor to verify. It is not a matter of [my] sense being used to prove reality as my perception stands independent of my neighnors. 

An individual's senses are like one scale. It is not absurd to use a scale to weigh things in reality so long as we have a way to calibrate it. Another scale can calibrate...two other scales increase our confidence..and billions of other scales makes the results pretty darn certain.