Reminds me of the old witch in Ingmar Bergman's movie Ansiktet ["The Face"], who repeatedly says: "You see what you see and you know what you know."
Fwiw, I will again refer to Lacan's "Borromean knot" I was discussing with LT a few days ago. I.e.
1) The real: whatever happens to us, prior to any narration we may make of it or to any understanding we may get of it. No matter how normal, weird or pathological it may sound.
2) The symbolical: the language possibilities we have received prior to any experience and how we later use them to tell (and at the same time conceal, or distort) the experience.
3) The imaginary: our apparently stable, yet ever-changing understanding of reality, or world vision/representation, as it was before and will be (altered) after any experience and our telling it. Be it "religious", "philosophical" or "scientific" (and generally a blend of all).
Those three registers are distinct, yet related. Each one depends on the two others and influences them in turn. If we really have no words to describe an experience or no place in our imaginary universe for it to fit in, we just won't allow ourselves to have the experience. If we don't give room for the experience in our speech or in our world-vision, it will vanish like an untold or repressed dream.
The key word, I guess, is fluidity on every level. Attention to what happens, however silly it may seem. Creativity in speech, instead of keeping on saying what we said before or what we are expected to say. Awareness that there is nothing more mysterious than reality, and that our understanding of it is partial, provisional and moving.