Masters of abstractions and the language of real people

I try to write religious and art philosophy that is accessible, my instincts seem to go in that direction in thinking and writing, trying to make things clear, wiping away my own fog. For me this means using real language used by real people. I like to think that this helps me avoid the problems of religious and philosophical writers who bury real things, real truths, in too many abstractions.

The irony is, saying that living objects are more important than the definitions of the objects, and even the truths about the object, is itself placing a truth above the object. In seeking the truth with real independence and courage the optimism or justification comes from the hope that the truths presented will one day help people, actual objects, at least in the future, even years from now.

The masters of abstraction seem to create fiefdoms with their abstractions where they play games with others who are trying to be masters of abstractions in academia and the arts. They don't really care if people prefer real language, but they do want to at least dazzle the proles enough to look up to them as masters and pay their salaries. This does not seem like a good way to find the truth.