Thanks, Bradley. Yes, that is in the ballpark, although there is more to it. The Enlightenment Gap features fairly prominently in my in-progress book, The Problem of Psychology and Its Solution. Here is a blog that defines what I mean by it. There are two facets of the Enlightenment Gap that are important to keep in mind. One is the matter versus mind relation and the second is the scientific knowledge versus society/social knowledge distinction. The former is well-known as the mind/body problem and the hard problem of consciousness and the latter is the tension between modernist and postmodernist sensibilities.  

As the Enlightenment blog notes, the problem of psychology is the direct downstream consequence of the Enlightenment Gap. Indeed, in retrospect, we can note how could it be otherwise?

Also, the problem of psychology identifies where the modernist empirical natural scientific language game runs aground. That is, it does fine with “STEM” fields (i.e., physics, chemistry, and biology-into-neuroscience, as well as math that grounds their quantitative logic and engineering). However, the STEM “hard sciences” (meaning that there is a body of consensual knowledge) go “soft” in the move from neuroscience to psychology. Why? The Enlightenment Gap.  

The argument is the UTOK provides us a way to solve the problem of psychology (the most vexing aspect being the problem of subject matter or the “behavior-mind-mind-mind” problem) and generate a larger theory of MENS Knowledge that we can then frame with the proper metamodern Wisdom-Orientation. This sets the stage for a potential shift into Enlightenment 2.0 in the 21^st Century and the move from the current Age of Confusion into the Age of Clarity.  

Best,

Gregg

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.