The definition of the object is secondary to the object itself

Does the sacredness of the living object elevate the physical over the mental? What it seems to do is place the definition of the object, by word or mathematics, as secondary to the object itself.

We have been defining and than worshiping the definition since before Plato, and not worshiping the living sacred supreme object, or supreme objects of life, which we can materially and supermaterially evolve to become, culminating in real Godhood. This is the legitimate transvaluation needed, not the death of God, which was the transvaluation Nietzsche desired.

Definitions and symbols are of course important, in their place, but religion, philosophy, and culture, need to be liberated from worship of the definition.