We live in a relaticvistic continuum. We are "structurly coupled" as biological beings to the external environment, and our perception (say of star light being older than our presentistic perception of it) is in a way subjected to relativity. But I think that most relativistic effects are known theoretically, and do no affect our coghnition in a primary way. We have "sense data" and make sense of it, so to speak casually. A lot of the data for relativity is much harder to come by, we cant measure gravitational lensing or the speed of light etc in the same way we can the colour of an apple. Its not primary for us, its derived like a maths proof based on empirical data, or something like that. We have an easy comprehension of "2" apples, but E=MC^2 is a lot more sophisticated to fathom.
But I heard that the observer is treated as the centre of the system in relativity - so our sense of being "in the midst" (middle) of the universe may be right...(?)... I suppose. Everywhere is its own centre, but when we are somewhere, we are centre stage - for ourselves only, but at least also.
I used to say that our ethics was relativistic - agent dependent, relative to the observer, and relating primarily to his or her flourishing. But objective also, real even if relative.
I never made the same claim about epistemology though (i.e. the foundation and limits of knoelwdge). In a sense tho' what we know is relative to our perspective, and yet objective all the same. There is sometimes an effort to associate relativistics with subjectivity, and therefore lack of real truth. I cant agree with that.
