Flexibility occupies a pivotal position across several distinct strands of the depth-psychology and contemplative-therapeutic corpus. In Taoist alchemy as explicated by Liu I-ming and Thomas Cleary, flexibility (rou, softness-yielding) is one of the two cardinal energies — alongside firmness — whose dynamic balance constitutes spiritual practice; neither suffices alone, and their misapplication produces characteristic pathologies: excessive flexibility yields laziness, self-depreciation, or loss of vital energy, while excessive firmness breeds rigidity and pride. In the clinical-behavioral tradition represented by Russ Harris’s exposition of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, flexibility is reconstituted as ‘psychological flexibility’ — the capacity to respond to repertoire-narrowing stimuli with emotional, cognitive, and behavioral range rather than habitual contraction. Here the term becomes the master-concept organizing the entire hexaflex model, subsuming defusion, acceptance, present-moment contact, and values-guided action. Daniel Siegel’s neurobiological perspective frames the cognate concept of ‘response flexibility’ as a prefrontal integrative function that mediates between incoming stimuli and adaptive behavior, connecting attachment security to narrative coherence. Wilfred Bion contributes the more abstract epistemological claim that genuine learning requires a psychic apparatus capable of losing rigidity while retaining integration. The shared tension across these traditions is between structure and openness: flexibility is never mere formlessness but the disciplined capacity to engage, yield, and adapt without dissolution.