The Misleading Rhetoric of Extrapolating on Special Relativity

Amazon Author Page : Lance Miller

---

I am not arguing or denying in any way Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Rather, I have a critique and caveat on certain ways of interpreting it's meaning into our lives.

In the referenced video below physicist Sabine Hossenfelder uses a thought experiment to illustrate the relativism of various points of phenomenon in relation to two observers. (embedded video starts exactly at this subsection).

The clever omission here is what I will call biological functionalism(really could be called biological agency). The word functional really gets at the core of this more than agency.

Back to the train scenario. Sure the train and train lights are not experienced at the same time due to light traveling different distances to different viewers in the Universe. My point of disagreement on the rhetoric is the existence of a functionalism in the biological beings watching the train and the lights.

The gaps in (micro) time of the lights are within the thresholds of time in order to pull off a functional relationship to the train, and for the biological observer to potentially gain what they want for pleasure or survival.

A dog watching the arrival of the train knows from previous experiences when the lights do a certain thing and the train slows it is preparing to stop at the station the dog is sitting at. The dog knows it's favorite human leaves for days and returns on this train. It perceives the lights and sounds of the train slowing well enough to react functionally.

Back to the rhetoric in the video. This claim of meaninglessness, or the other claim of entirely different realities depending on the position of the observers, is dubious. This is not how biological beings experience the Universe, it is how atoms experience the Universe. And it is not an illusion the biological beings have conjured up as if in an opiate-driven dream. Biological agents very effectively intervene in the atomic chaos of the Universe -they move things around, they shape things. Regardless of lack of precision through the lens of physics, biological agents effective intervene in the atomic chaos and move the atoms, placing them where the biological entity wanted them, for a duration of time functionally relevant to biology.

We could extend this biological agency up to cultural/social unit agency -with clans, cities, corporations, and nations deciding where to dig up rocks and where to put them after grinding or melting them.

The rhetoric of relativity accuses us of seeing illusions, patterns and meaning where there isn't any. There is something very wrong in this claim. It is to talk as if the atoms and physics of the Universe are the final, wise, non-illusion perception of reality. The rhetoric suspiciously leaves out biological functionalism, and by extension cultural technological functionalism.

The illusion, the lie, is actually in the rhetoric.

...and there is a logical link between this rhetoric of illusion and meaninglessness as a grounding orientation in academic promotion of post-modernism to fresh waves of young adults in college.

---

Amazon Author Page : Lance Miller

Woke War on Objectivism

Amazon Author Page : Lance Miller

Two propositions:

1. The truth is subjective.
   • elevates opinions, feelings, identity, partisanship, and perception to the status of truth.
   • implies that truth is relative, fluid, and immaterial.
   • tends toward philosophical skepticism and disengagement with opposing arguments.
2. The truth is objective.
   • makes truth seem hard to reach, because objectivity isn't easy.
   • implies that truth can be a stubborn constraint on realizing our hopes.
   • tends toward pluralism, since no point of view can monopolize truth, and truth cannot be kept segregated into seperate subjective parallel worlds.

There is a decades-long smearing of objectivism and promotion of subjectivism on the Left. From the 90s Leftist promotion of mysticism (in all kinds of cultural traditions), to the emergence of personal experience as the referenced source in college coursework.

I think there is and will be a lot of culture war battling on objectivism versus subjectivism, especially as right-sided culture warriors are blind to the epistemological roots and fight without seeing the rhetorical playing field for the simplicity it is.

My longheld stance on the dichotomy is this: subjective never gets to have a default value above zero in social/public currency.

One's personal subjective experience is exactly that, personal and internal.

The Leftist focus on subjective references are formulaic performances which are more predictable than messy objective reality.

So first LGBT BIPOCs learned the formula, then through repetition and drift the performances evolved into unrealistic mystical camp. This lauded subjectivism isn't in the inspired, savant, genius, gifted artist realm. It is silly and poorly executed cosplay. We've been asked to fundamentally rearrange reality around the stupidest end of our internal depths.

Gender Identity is Subjective and Being Protected By Religious Fervor :

Amazon Author Page : Lance Miller

On Elitism and Privilege in the US : More Millionaires and Billionaires Is Good : More Patriotic Americans is Good

Amazon Author Page : Lance Miller

Referenced interview:
Will the elites ever behave? Aspirational oligarchs could spark a revolution. - BY PETER TURCHIN AND MARY HARRINGTON unherd.com

---

Main Action Shots of the Interview

TURCHIN: Exactly. What we see in the historical record is that all complex societies go through periods of good times, maybe a century or so long on average, and then periods of disintegration. During the good times, after a couple of generations, the elites get used to the fact that life is good and stable, and that’s when the iron law of oligarchy kicks in. The elites are very strongly tempted to convert their power into goodies for themselves — and if there’s nothing stopping them, that’s what they do. They basically reconfigure the economy in a way that depresses the wages of workers and creates a “wealth pump” that funnels riches directly to the owners and managers of corporations.

TURCHIN: Precisely. Those elites in the US and the UK had 30 glorious years. But by the late Seventies, they started getting selfish. That’s when we began to see the separation between worker productivity and worker compensation. And immediately — within another 30 years — the numbers of uber-rich people exploded in the United States. The number of decamillionaires, those with $10 million or more, increased tenfold from the Eighties to 2010.

---

I agree with Turchin (and probably got some ideas from him) about:

• Elite overproduction.
• Elites are neither good nor bad.
• They are a necessary managerial hierarchy, because we live in a society.
• They cyclically start out as the hero revolutionary visionaries and end up corrupt self dealing degenerates (ideally stretched over multiple generations.)
• The current elite have been degenerates since around 1970 and this has something to do with economic stagnation.

I disagree about:

• Turchin says the elites are basically the 1% or decamillionaires. No, that's an arbitrary threshold and not the natural boundary of our elite class culture. Unlike any previous civilization our elite is massive, maybe 10% or even 30%. It is unlike any bureaucracy seen before the 20th century.
• Turchin gives the wealth pump a lot of weight, but I see it as one of many side effects of degeneracy. Also its less of a pump than people just kicking the ladder down behind them. Inequality and wealth concentration isn’t a problem in itself. It's too easy to confuse important producers with useless parasites. The problem is that people don’t trust the system. Feeding envy and distrust doesn’t solve anything.
• Turchin sees Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, etc. as anti-elite revolutionaries. I see them as degenerate hooligans employed as the elite's morality police. The new KKK. (The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers aren't revolutionaries either. Moms for Liberty and Gays against Groomers are. So are the Yang Gang, Mises Caucus, etc. Revolution doesn't mean politically motivated violence or theatrics, it means actually trying to overturn the political order.)

It's not about who has a lot of power and money. It's power with or without money, money with or without power, and celebrity with or without power or money. It's not about haves vs have nots. It's mostly about people who think they deserve to have more without contributing anything special.

It's not about tearing people down. It's about not bailing out the too big to fails. If you need special treatment then you were never special in any way that deserves our support.

Simply put I don’t want to overthrow 30,000 imaginary oligarchs. I want to see 30 million actual wokes mocked into submission.

An income level or net worth threshold is not a class, and our society is basically classless. Our elite is a culture.

I want to replace the politically correct elite culture of experts and bureacrats with an even BIGGER elite class of patriotic Americans with common sense.

I want more millionaires and billionaires, not because they deserve it but because it's a man's duty to try sometimes, and women should support that.

Amazon Author Page : Lance Miller