Platonism

It sounds from your articles that this is not a purely ancient concept. You are blaming scholarship on it, as well as modern fields of knowledge such as mathematics, logic, and more. I have no interest in upholding Plato's opinion, but in clarifying the concept that there are non-physical entities, and that there are systems of interaction between physical entities and metaphysical ones.
It seemed to me that this is a milestone in your teaching, and therefore I asked for guidance on expanding and clarifying it.
Regarding the private idea: Kabbalah claims that a tallit with tzitzit on it has become holy in some sense. If the tallit is material, how can one even discuss its holiness? How is this different from saying that water is wise or that fire is arrogant? Therefore, the concept seems to be that there is an abstract entity behind every material detail, and about which we can claim that it is non-holy or holy or undergoing a change of sanctification [and without the assumption that there is a private idea, we cannot speak of the sanctification of a specific material, only of the sanctification of material in general].
And please, if you think my move is wrong, I would be happy to detail the error.

The study of ideas is an ancient philosophy. The fact that I use it in a modern way is true. Mathematicians, most of whom are Platonists, do not really deal with the meaning of this Platonism.

I did not understand what the connection is with ideas? If they say that the tallit has become holy or that some object is holy (the ten holy ones are a mishnah and not a Hasidic idea), it means that the material object is holy. I see no reason in the world to assume that there is some idea above it to explain such claims. And even if you perceive holiness as an ontological state of the thing, then it means that the object is subject to the effects of holiness. What does this have to do with the concepts of ideas?

Riding? You also used the term ‘Rubtz’ in your article on the haluvs. What do you mean? How can I explain to myself the interaction between metaphysical beings and materials?
[Of course, ten holy things are a change, but the necessity to understand this as an ontic state stems from Hasidic or Kabbalistic ideas]

First of all, there is an interaction between spirit and matter, and I don't see why there wouldn't be one between matter and disease. Second, where do you see an interaction? Holiness is a property of the material body, not in interaction with it. And third, the question of whether holiness is ontic or not is not related to Hasidism or Kabbalah. The simple view in the Sugiyot and the Prishonim is that it is an ontic reality.
In any case, I see no connection to the question of ideals.