Saying that structures are structured is just a neutral-speaking way of asserting the priority of intelligibility over being, the same notion as is described by another kind of neutral-speak as the ontological difference. Intelligibility ought to be self-evidently prior, ought to need no 'verification'. You can't explicate intelligibility further without calling neutral-speak into question. What makes it neutral? Surely need to avoid the well-attested danger of subjectivity - which is a motive, not a reason. But isn't that danger the greatest when subjectivity lays claim to the authority thought to reside in neutrality. That neutrality rises and falls with the health of the culture is not the point, it is symptomatic and no proof that it has a real meaning. Culture itself is born of the fear of intelligibility: What if it is groundless? Better to choose overt groundlessness than risk making that discovery.