My comment is similar to Pluralus', which is basically that I think all communication is always a process of abstraction. so even the concepts of "freedom" and "practical reality" are in some sense abstract.

But so I think the real test of a good ideology is how tightly bound it is to human perceptions and feelings. Which is to say: any statement on ethics or morality needs to have an easily traceable foundation in whether it makes individual people feel good or bad.

Such an ideology would be in direct opposition to mainstream religions that derive their ethics on "God's will" or on what's "natural" - concepts that have nothing to do with human feelings.

I've written a lot more about this, especially in these articles:

- https://nebulasaurus.medium.com/will-humans-ever-settle-on-one-religion-4e50c81b1d96

- https://nebulasaurus.medium.com/4-things-all-good-citizens-believe-implicitly-dd37c4dbef6

The bottom line though, I think, is that every word is an abstraction, so you can't very meaningfully label some concepts as abstract and others not. But you can clearly say what has a positive or negative effect on people's perception of well-being.