Equanimity is here presented as more than a salutary affective state associated with, or subordinated to, the practice of mindfulness, as it is often presented in Western Buddhist-informed teachings. In the context of Western psychotherapy, teaching mindfulness has meant for me, among other things, folding it largely into equanimity, noting that the two share a description of the flexibility of mind and the attitudes required to hold multiple, often contradictory, perspectives at once. Whereas mindfulness emphasizes conscious attention to inner and outer experience, equanimity underscores the freely ranging aspect of that attention, its deference and the active balancing producing moments of impartiality. Equanimity is a dynamic approach to self, others, and the world that avoids the stickiness of judgment, the fixity of needing to be right or in the know, and the violence of dogmatic conviction. As a mode of perception, equanimity is supremely mobile, on the move, looking over things (internal and external) with an evenly-hovering attention. Equanimity is not about calmly settling. It is never averse to the presence of judgments, just to their rigidifying. It is never indifferent to the objects of its awareness. It reminds us, for instance, that there is no advance without sacrifice, no light without the darkness out from which it shines, and no knowledge without the initial condition of not-knowing. From taking and retaking positions of equipoise, the attitude of equanimity encompasses the totality of what is, respecting the fact that any single object, like any point on the surface of a sphere, is the center of everything else. In this way, equanimity tends categorically in the direction of intellectual humility since all unique foci are experienced as inseparable from the fields in which they are embedded. And, in this manner of appreciating the correlativity of every seemingly opposed side, they create and nurture new ways of experiencing the world.