Concrete vs. Abstract

Some of us are comfortable with theory and conceptual constructs that are neither verifiable nor specific in nature.  Others are not.  If you can't touch it or smell it, it can't be real.  I exaggerate of course.  Many of us take certain things on faith, and things like gravity leave evidence, but you can't use your senses to verify it.... well I'm wrong about that.  We know it's here because we can feel our weight, and we see that we are kept from flying off into space.  Hmmm.  Another example then... Maybe it's more about things we can quantify or document vs things we know in our hearts to be true that can't be adequately expressed in words or figures.  Two people with two different definitions of what/who god is for instance.  Do we take spiritual writings as litteral or figurative?  Actual fact or illustrative lesson?  Does it matter if we agree with our peers on anything if our intentions are to be honorable and accepting?  Does the concrete thinker have the right to judge the abstract thinker?  Are either of their positions correct?  Who decides what is correct and what's not?  Who says THAT'S ok?  Ow.  makes my head hurt.  In short, the lesson I learned this week is about love and the possibility that it can and does transcend time and space, and concrete vs abstract mean nothing.