Vitalistic Naturalism?

Do you mean is there an overarching 'logic/theory/Perspective' that can encompass both of your proposed Perspectives?
I didn't know that they needed a 'resolution as they sound like statements of 'belief', catechism.
Resolution for whom? All Perspectives are unique.
Are you seeking a 'logic' that encompasses all 'beliefs'?
An omniversal (and beyond) theory of everything (ToE)?

My apologies for any vagueness... by dialectic resolution, I did indeed mean a synthesis -- not a theory of everything, but a vitalistic naturalism. Can they coexist in one theory? What would it look like?

I ask because I'm in the process of analyzing a certain author who is generally defined as a naturalist, however he has many vitalistic tendencies. Any and all searches I have done for ideas regarding the synthesis of these naturally opposed ideas have come up short, and so I turn to you and ask.

Any ideas are greatly appreciated.

I do not think that physical explanations can account for the mind; therefore, there must necessarily be something beyond the mere physical realm. Naturalism also cannot fully explain the probabilities involved in quantum mechanics.

My problem with this though is the -isms. Isms often create the appearance of mutually exclusive concepts, but in reality many of the schools of ism have overlap between them, although the people that define themselves as belonging to this or that ism just do not see the connect.

You might not mean a TOE, but that might be precisely what's needed to account for how there can be a natural origin of the creative forces behind life.

In other posts I've mentioned my fascination with neutral monism as a possible path to a natural explanation for how there can be something "more" than physicalness, yet still be natural. Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What does neutral monism give us? Well, the big objection by physicalists is duality; that is, if there is something beyond the physical, and consciousness/life is part of or derived from that, then how is it that the physical brain and this non-physical stuff intermingle in life?

One variation of neutral monism, substance monism, posits the idea of some uncreated, eternally-existing, infinitely extended (as in an unending ocean) type of energetic material that is the basis of all existence. So both physicalness and consciousness are forms of this more basic existential stuff. Duality is solved because consciousness and physicalness only appear different, but really they are two forms a more subtle substance.

Not only is duality solved, but another huge creation dilemma is offered a solution: infinite regress. The perennial question of what caused the cause of the cause of the cause -- ad infinitum -- has an end in the ocean of the ground state substance. You do also need ground state (GS) conditions that cause the GS substance to change (such as, for instance, turbulence or compression-decompression dynamics), and those GS conditions must be able to somehow turn evolutive (since we've observed evolutiveness in our universe).

An interesting possibility with this theory is that the quality of evolutiveness developed first in GS ocean, and then that force played a role in the subsequent development of our universe and the life and consciousness found within it. And what we call "God" is some of us more intuitive types picking up on the presence of that evolutive and natural force that is present in and behind all vital forms.

The two claims appear to be reconcilable. Though, that hinges on what you mean by "vital element". There might be something beyond the physical and, at the same time, it might be possible to explain all of the physical without appealing to anything beyond the physical. I can't see a logical contradiction there at first glance.

Re: 1) It is not that there is a 'vital element' beyond the physical, but that which is perceived as physical has it's existence, the 'Ground' of that existence is 'Consciousness/Mind'. That is all there 'is'. Perfect symmetry, monism, ineffable, 'Consciousness'. (fill in whatever term you like, 'God', 'Allah', "vital element", whatever works best...). What we perceive as 'physical' is nothing other than 'Mindstuff' ('information waves'), so, in this sence, from this Perspective, yes, there is a "vital element" 'beyond' (but not 'beyond') what we (Conscious Perspective) perceive as 'physicality'.

Re: 2) All 'thought', all 'explanation', all the workings of the brain and it's excrescences, all 'logic', all 'meaning' exist (in context). Existence IS context! Everything exists in it's context. Duality/distinction context is existence. 'Consciousness' is monist, One, all that there, by definition, can be. So, any 'understanding' or 'explanation' can only be 'physical', as that is the nature of 'our' tools of understanding. IF our only tool is a hammer, the world will be full of nails. But what better tool for nails than a hammer? The physical understands the physical. 'Thoughts' are necessary for 'understanding', ego. There is no 'understanding' during a 'direct perception';
"Our true nature is beyond 'thought', and can only be discerned when one abides in the present and serenely reflects the wonder of existence!"

"The function of our mind is as a perceiver, but our thoughts find their origin in the memories of the mind's perception."

So the only explanations of existence possible cannot possibly come from beyond existence; there is no'thing' 'beyond' existence (the only 'thing'). Monality can have no features, no qualities...

So both Perspectives are One (as is all else) Consciousness!

Is this what you had in mind?
Or this;

Application of Occam's razor leaves;
Don't they coexist in the "theory that everything exists" (including all 'theories').
'Everything exists!
Existence is context.
Everything exists within it's context.
All other definitions of 'existence' are subsets of the one law/set that everything exists.
Simplistic as it is, does this not answer the question in a demonstrably 'positive' fashion?

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson