Agree that clarity does not necessarily require a lot of words, and nor can clarity be achieved by simplifying below the level of complexity present and relevant to the discussion (which implies in one sense an acceptance of a fundamental level of mystery due to the levels of complexity that seem to actually be present).
As to explaining away, that depends upon what it is that is being examined.
Is one exploring some aspect of objective reality (whatever it is), via the medium of our subconsciously created model that seems to be what it is that delivers our experiential reality?
Or is one dealing with some aspect of our subconscious model (our experiential reality) that has no direct correlate in the external reality (whatever that may actually be)?
The distinction between the two different sorts of “reality” is important, and seems to be a fundamental part of enlightenment in a modern context. Collapsing or confusing the two is a major source of error.