We all know what Interface is, right? This fundamental Zero Balancing principle means touching at the structural and energetic boundary, where we end and the client begins. In a ZB session, we touch at Interface. Is this all we do? When we hold the receiver in High Regard and remain in the Witness State, are these the same as Interface? Can one have a clear boundary and not hold the other person in high regard? Can one have an agenda, meaning not be in the Witness State, and still be at Interface? From a broader perspective, can one stay at Interface and behave unethically? Can staying at Interface equalize archetypal power differences? Is Interface maintained if one is conscious of a boundary and crosses it anyway? In the realm of ZB sessions and human relationships, is Interface all we need? Let’s have a glass of wine or a cup of tea and talk about it. 

Let’s start our conversation within the context of a Zero Balancing session. Is Interface all we need to give a good ZB? Is Interface the same as meeting the Donkey? Can one touch energy and structure simultaneously and consciously (Donkey Touch) and not be at Interface? Have you ever blended with your client’s energy and structure so you really felt connected to their Donkey, yet not been at Interface? Can one be at Interface and not touch energy and structure simultaneously and consciously? Have you received ZB sessions where the practitioner was at Interface yet did not meet your Donkey? 

Can you be at Interface and not in the witness state? Have you received, or given, sessions where the boundary was clear, yet you judged or felt judged in some way? Where your client’s head tilted to the left and you thought it should remain midline? Or where your head was tilted and your practitioner kept trying to place it midline? In these examples the witness state is lacking. Does that mean Interface is lacking as well? Can you maintain a clear boundary and be in judgment or have an agenda? Or does having an agenda mean you can’t be at Interface? 

Let’s apply this question more broadly to human relationships. Is Interface all you need for clarity and safety in a relationship? I have lots of questions here. For one, do both parties need to be conscious of Interface? If I’m at Interface with my neighbor, but my neighbor has no concept of boundary, is remaining at Interface all I need? If my neighbor keeps parking their car in my driveway and I keep telling them where my property ends and theirs begins, that should clarify the boundary and establish Interface. Will that change their behavior? 

Does being at Interface mean the other person will do what you want? Or that you will do what they want? What if this neighbor acknowledges it’s my driveway (clear on whose is whose) and parks there anyway? Do they need to respect my boundary to be at Interface? 

What about relationships with multiple layers or power differentials? What if my neighbor is my boss and knowing it’s my driveway, asks to park there every weekend? Or if your client is your landlord and asks for a discount? The boundary is acknowledged in both cases as is asking permission. Is there any pressure to say yes, given the power differential? Are they at Interface? If so, does maintaining Interface equalize the power and remove any additional pressure? 

I hope this stimulates some interesting Glass of Wine conversations. Thanks for reading!