Explicit forms of understanding and communication (explicit truth) can represent only some aspects of reality. In conflicts between rationalism and irrationalism, enlightenment and romantic ideals, suits and creatives, what is at stake is the leftover reality — its nature, its unity and/or multiplicity, how/whether truth can be established/shared, and how it relates to those realms of reality that can be known and spoken of explicitly.

My own hunch is that the non-explicit aspects of reality are precisely those that matter to us, and the near-universal requirement that things be known and spoken of in an explicit mode serves as a filter that systematically filters the non-explicit from consideration in most collective endeavors.

I also think the non-explicit aspects of reality are precisely those that most need to be agreed upon and shared, but this agreement and sharing is different from agreement on fact or sharing a belief in the validity of an argument.