incest
 why is it taboo? besides biological.
 socially, it is unthinkable to most cultures to think family love as romantic love. We want to diliniate between the two
  just perpetuating the same.
 what is the scandal, according to Derrida and Levi-Strauss?
  it is wrong on both sides, biological and social. reasons for being wrong are the same for both
  blurs them both.
We tend to think the binary. 
 how we see the binary is an illusion
 incest inhibition shows that this thinking doesn't work
 we must rethinking about our "Being"*

Rubik's Cube
 if not straightened, is it longer a "cube"?
 no longer mathmatically, a "cube" but how else should we think about this?
 "corrupted" form, is it the structure or the form that is so? 
 but can only see it as "corrupted" because we know the true structure and know what is wrong that makes it not itself*
 has the structure of the cube been played with? according to derrida, it is "substitution"*
 if we change, are we different? where do we find our sense of self?
Deconstruction of separation.
instead of approaching from familiar, read from how the readings percieve*

How do we know a circle?
 is a circle a structure?
 what is a structure, to start?
  the relationships it has with itself.
  without individual components, it could not exist; this creates its own governing properties
  form and content is determined by governing principles
 yet system of the structure is to be manipulated despite being untouchable*; both within and out of the system

Structure*
 its governing principles constitutes it as a structure
 it's always producing its own form and content
 the "structuality of structure"; meta-structureal
 subtituting center changes the structure*
Take God
 it is beyond reality yet is the center of the trinity
 both inside and outside; trancendental modifier
 without God, both Jesus and Holy Spirit cannot be possible
 without God as centerpoint, faiths without it is unthinkable
 
Whole of Western philosophy/discourse has depended on structure in order to understand
 Yet Derrida says that is not true
 does not account for time and space
 it assumes linear relation that may or does not exist
notions of ruptures
 can't precisely identify in one way for everyone
 too complex to define the center so easily even if something feels different
 no way to say New York identity without 9/11 for example
 no such thing as a center
linguistic sign(s) is the center of all
 there is no "original" linguistic sign
 there is no center, impossible to idenify
 western philosophy has relied upon lingusitic sign to discourse
difer()ence; think about instead how they change over time rather than finding originating point.