Dynamical paradoxicalism

Is the name of a new article at Integral World by Jonathan Zap which reiterates many of the same themes discussed at IPS and in this blog. On the other hand he really sounds preachy, has an explanation for everything, which he criticizes in others. He promotes acceptance of ambiguity yet wants everything defined. He'd likely say that's a paradox, as if that explains it. More likely rationalizes it. A few select excerpts:

"Dynamic paradoxicalism is my attempt to create a meta-philosophy that is a counter to fundamentalist and absolutist thought, which is nearly as common amongst New Agers and the Left as it is amongst religious fundamentalists and the Right. The greatest of life skills is the ability to live with ambiguity, ambivalence, and paradox, without trying to regularize these uncertainties into finished, absolute truths. Dynamic paradoxicalism recognizes that most important areas of truth exist as a paradox, where seemingly contradictory elements have a dynamic level of validity based on context specific circumstances. Although a greater conception that synthesizes the disparate elements of a paradox into a grand unit is an awesome addition to the conceptual toolbox, it is not always the most useful tool in the box. Dynamic paradoxicalism recommends an ability to slide between the poles of a paradox, in some circumstances favoring the point of view of one side of the paradox, in other cases the other pole, and in still other cases favoring the unified view.

"The ego understandably hates paradox, ambivalence, ambiguity, complexity, and uncertainty, and would like to clear these up into a grand solution. It wants to take the murkiness and replace it with a shining fundamentalism, or an ism of some sort, a divine map that illuminates all territories: past, present and future. The Ken Wilber version of this tendency would be to take any of these paradoxes and unify them into a grand diagram, a new paradigm that elevates the Wilberite to an Olympian meme, transcendent of all dualities.


"The dynamic paradoxicalist centers himself on something like what Aleister Crowley called 'True Will.' True Will, as I use the term, is your inner refraction of the Tao, the deeply felt sense of enthusiasm meaningfulness, purpose, and sacred quest toward a life aim. True Will should be followed even when outer circumstance puts up fierce resistance. True Will is the trembling needle of the compass that points the way through the ambiguities, paradoxes, and uncertainties. [...] Jung defined the 'Self' as the totality of all the psychic structures. It is the Self, not the ego that would have access to True Will -- a will that derives from essence and that is in accord with the will of the cosmos. If the 'you' is the Self creating from True Will, then the principle becomes far more robust.

 "The dynamic paradoxicalist doesn't fall into the fallacy of the 'middle path.' The dynamic paradoxicalist doesn't have to choose the path of Goldilocks, who avoids the porridge that is too hot or too cold and always goes for the tepid mush. Sometimes we want hot or cold, we may need to experience extreme. [...]  but a much more alive type of balance is dynamic balance, the balance of a ballet dancer or a martial artist. The dynamic paradoxicalist employs dynamic balance, not the static equilibrium of the 50/50 middle state."