"Implicit"/"Explicit"; "Implicate"/"Explicate"--2

[This is the "explicative" order; it is unambiguous and clear.]

       Light can behave explicitly like particles at times... like matter...and explicitly like waves at other times...like energy...but the reality of light is fundamentally ambiguous.  Neither the explicative order of matter nor that of energy will suffice, and light “itself” remains “folded into” the implicative order of nature.*

       I find a similar phenomenon in language.  Generations have taught an understanding of this ancient saying of Rabbi Hillel:
               If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
               If I am only for myself, what am I?
               And if not now, when?

An explication de texte for this saying might be: 
               If I don’t believe in myself and espouse myself, who will                                  believe in me and support me? 
               But if I am only out for myself and my own interests, what                                 kind of human being am I? 
               And if I don’t act on both of these premises now, whenever                                 will I?  


This is a traditional explication or folding out of meaning.  It  

is quite clear and unambiguous.  And it is worth pondering.

* David Bohm in "New Ideas in Order" from the CBC radio series Physics and Beyond, done during the 1980s.