How reality and ethical and aesthetic values coincide in theological materialism

What is most real is most valuable. According to the classic Whitney Oates examination, Plato thought this way, which is a solid way of seeing, but I think Plato turned reality upside down and worshiped unreality or non-life, whereas theological materialism regards life over and above the Idea or definition of life.

Ideas such as courage or truth are important but they only define the real thing. Definition is secondary to the real thing. “Pure existence” is only two words of a non-material Idea in Plato, whereas in reality pure existence is more likely the highest evolved living object. The same criticism applies to the traditional religious definitions of God and spirit, they are ideas and definitions only and are not considered material objects.

This does not rule out or reject Plato or traditional religion, but it defines the sacred religious Ideas of God as only the first glimpse of real Godhood, which is, in reality, evolved to in the material and supermaterial world, as defined in the Twofold Path.

If we can only know that which does not change, as Plato and other religious founders define Ideas, then we cannot know anything since everything changes in evolution. We can know changing evolution by applying the various forms of knowing, from rationalism and empiricism to pragmatism and skepticism and finally even mysticism. But ideas only define this process and are not the objects of evolution. In projecting the direction of evolution we can utilize these ways of knowing, but finally also we can apply intuitive vision.  In seeking reality and truth virtually every method is permitted.