This reminds me of a discussion between Alan Kay and Rich Hickey on role of "data" that occurred right here on HN[1]. The TLDR (though the thread is very worth reading, IMO):
Alan Kay argues that bare "data" isn't very meaningful on its own because it leaves the interpretation too open. His view is nicely summarized by the following quote:
> For important negotiations we don't send telegrams, we send ambassadors.
Rich Hickey argues that bare "data" is a fundamental primitive that, while leaving open the possibility of misinterpretation, leaves open the possibility of re-interpretation in multiple contexts. This is the strongest quote I took away from his POV:
> None of the inputs to our sensory systems are accompanied by explanations of their meaning.
Based on your above post, it looks like you're strongly in Alan Kay's camp, which may also explain (in part) your experience struggling with Clojure's approach.