Karl what you say seems very true to me. As a purist, I naturally gravitate towards "hard" SF. And the challange for hard SF writers might be said to be two-fold.

On the one hand there is the philosophical-academic "Two Cultures" issue you mention. And it is here that sometimes hard SF can be ridiculous, as in Asimov's diagnosis of how religion works in his otherwise classic (if technologically dated) Foundation As you point out Hard SF should always try to take into human subjectivity, rather than create a 1-dimensional explanation of human experience and indeed of the universe as a whole. It would seem that to write a really good SF story one needs not only a good knowledge of science but a good knowledge of sociology, psychology, popular culture, comparative religion and mysticism, etc etc.

The other challange is to include the personal human element in a way that complements the hard science elements. Often it happens (not always) that Hard SF is dry and unbalanced, lacking sufficient human depth. As I see it, ultimately even the most ultra tech SF is still a human story (even if it doesnt feature a single earthling!). But this should also be done in a way that doesnt depreciate from the rigorous science side of the setting

Anyway I applaud your efforts and i agree completely on the need to transcend the old two cultures dichotomy. And no, i dont think it pretentious at all. As SF writers it is our job to present new approaches and visionary ideas!

I havent as yet bought any of your books, but having only just seen your web site and read the book reviws, as well as your own comments on various matters, I am now very keen to.