Let's take it from the @Leo Gura's latest video: There are always contents of perception. These contents are what we call facts. Facts are self-apparent (obvious).
Facts are always explicit, even if they are arrived at through exploration of a question to which answer is unknown at first.
However, which facts are perceived is 'decided' implicitly.
No fact that is being perceived is the process by which facts become self-apparent (obvious).
This process in which facts become self-apparent is what we call context. Context is the implicit part of perception. Context may become explicit through language, but the facts that are being 'produced' are not the context that produces them.
That is because the original context we are describing is replaced by the context of describing a context.
Therefore, the present context is always absent from perception. At the moment of the production of facts, the context is always implicit. Both context and facts are what informs our ability to act.
Recontextualization is a way to influence actions by changing context without changing the facts.
There are various depths of recontextualization. Depending on the amount of actions it influences, the recontextualization may be radical. In my current understanding, a mystical experience is a radical recontextualization that influences the ability to describe one's context (making it explicit).
This influence is what leaves space for novelty to arise. This is why we say that we have experienced the death of the self, because the context is what we usually identify with. The mystical experience however does not leave us context-less. The context simply becomes unknown, and by repeated attempts to describe it, we arrive at farther and farther awakenings. That is the role of contemplation.