Affirming Plato in art, but redefining Godhood

I can affirm, as Plato did, an art that contains hymns to the Gods, and an art in praise of good men, but contrary to Plato, life evolves to Godhood in the material and supermaterial world. I also agree that the sacred in art should instruct but also delight, as Plato suggested, avoiding boring didactic art. The big difference with Plato here comes in defining Godhood as material and supermaterial, as that which we evolve to become in the material world.

This means that the abstract beauty of Plato, the Idea, is not the highest beauty but is only a secondary definition of the most beautiful material object, or supermaterial objects of Godhood at the zenith of evolution. As in Plato, Godhood remains the point of reference for absolute beauty, and for goodness, but it is not the non-material “beauty” of Plato. The Great Spiritual Blockade to real beauty and real Godhood is this way unblocked in art, as well as in philosophy and religion.

Plato says only once in his writings (according to Whitney Oates) that God creates the sacred Ideas, but in the rest of Plato he says life is the creation of the Demiurge, which is right in line with the esoteric understanding in traditional religion which rejects materialism by following the Inward Path and not the Outward Path to Godhood. To them God is not material or supermaterial but non-material---God is a sacred Idea or Word, or a so-called non-material blissful symbolic experience.

The realistic idealism of the ancient Greek sculptures of Gods and Goddesses, seen as the highest in human beauty, was on the right evolutionary artistic track toward the evolutionary realism and beauty we now can affirm, as we all evolve toward Godhood in the real and natural world.