All of these terms invite replacement by some big range of real-world examples. In one case--just the one, "intentional states"--the author actually gives some examples of what is meant: Henry VIII, the first auto one owned, the Pythagorean Theorem, or the Mississippi River. There are precious few other instances of the class "concrete noun" in the whole article.
I used to know a computer guy who was more of a configuration management specialist than a programmer. He liked to BS people with long speeches full of "methodology ... baseline ... configuration ..." It would sound like, "Once you establish a methodology to baseline working configurations, you never slip back. From there, it mushrooms as you go up a meta-level to configure new successful methodologies for baselining ... Blah! Blah! Blah!" The funny thing was, most of the customers would assume he was actually talking about their specific problems and knew the answer to same, when he was only hiding that he wasn't and didn't.
I used to get white-hot angry at him when he'd do that to obscure the problems. I was the system designer who absolutely needed clear understanding and agreement on what I was to design and build. Mr. BS was flat-out sabotaging me as well as wasting time and deceiving the customer.
Strunk and White, a good English style guide, says to prefer the concrete over the abstract where possible. They're right.
I've got to eat and I left my computer's power supply at work, so... hold that thought (the words will likely stay in the server).
But let me ask you, why do you want to describe something as nebulous (and even that term is too concrete) as the intentional life of man in concrete terms?
That is like trying to knock a hammer into the breeze.
Agreed. Sooner or later, you have to say what you mean and mean what you say.