Maybe I'm not really getting my question across clearly enough. I'm not sure whether I will ever actually pursue a job in programming or not and I don't want to only learn what can be used in practical application. I'm someone that reads string theory for fun, for nothing other than to have the knowledge of it. Maybe you're not into that kind of thing, but you shouldn't assume other people aren't. Since programming languages take a lot of reading and practice to even become decent, I'd like to become good with the least abstracted, commonly used abstract language, if that sentence makes sense. C++ was what people (at the time) had told me I should learn, and you're saying otherwise, so I'm asking, for my particular instance, what you would recommend. I understand C++ is abstract, but I'm looking for an abstract language less abstract than others while still being useful to create programs in Windows. That way I can move from the least abstract (yet, I understand, already abstract) language to the more abstract languages. I find that easier (C++ to Python) than the opposite (Python to C++). Or rather, learning some C++ has made Python easier for me, but learning some Python didn't make C++ feel much easier. Are you going to take the position all human beings learn the same way?
To explain, and correct me if I'm wrong, you were calling C++ less abstracted than other languages and that you need to write more complex code to cover the same thing in another language because you have to manually cover more bases. You see that as a negative, I see it as something important, scholastically. I'm not sure you're understanding that not every little piece of knowledge some of us want is for applied use. I don't need to conceptualize string theory. I want to. Don't answer the question from the angle "will you use this?", but rather "will this help you understand other languages and how/why they abstracted this more than this other language did?". You seem to understand C++ pitfalls; learning from mistakes and flaws is often easier than vice versa, regardless of subject. I'm looking for one (or two, or three) languages to learn that will let me understand what's beneath the abstraction and use it. You might see it as a waste of time, people that are interested in mechanisms of life, whether it's a cell or a programming language, don't.
To put it simply, I've heard some people recommend learning Lisp because it will help me with computer science and programming in general. I don't know if this piece of information is accurate or not, or whether there is something else that's better. Everywhere I go I see conflicting opinions on what's best to learn or start with or expand with. So rather than look for answers tailored for the general masses, I'm saying what I specifically want. Why I haven't started at assembly is because (as far as I know), I can't write a fully fleshed out program in Windows with it. I still intend, eventually, to learn some of it, yes, for no other reason than to understand something I'm interested in, as hard as it is for you to accept.
All I want to know is what is the least abstract, commonly used language that is above that threshold (being able to create complex programs in a Windows environment).