Eagleton: Post-Structualism and the transcendental signifier

"...committed to a belief in some ultimate 'word' presence, essence, truth or reality which will act as the foundation of all our thought, language, and experience.  It has yearned for the sign which will give meaning to all others-the 'transcendental signifier'-and for the anchoring, unquestionable meaning to which all our signs can be seen to point..." (Eagleton 113).

     Well good luck finding that one.  There is not now, nor shall there ever be one foundation upon which we can rest human experience, literature or any experience.  There is no single word that can cover it all.  Besides, even if that word were to be found, Eagleton points out that it needs to be something seperate from our language in order to describe the language, so once it is found it immediately becomes part of the language and loses all of its ability to act as a foundation for the language.  Am i getting this right?  This whole Post-Structuralism seems alot like tryign to pick up a turd by it's clean end.  There is no way to grab it that you won't get dirty, and smelly.