No. Is the short answer. The dictionary definition is

impersonal: having no personal preference; “impersonal criticism”; “a neutral observer”
inert: having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive; “inert matter”; “an indifferent chemical in a reaction”
not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest
possessing no distinctive quality or characteristics
achromatic: having no hue; “neutral colors like black or white”
one who does not side with any party in a war or dispute
having no net electric charge

Reference:
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Which is not what we offer in biodynamic touch. It’s much more interactive. It’s an intimate and heightened experience for both client and practitioner that involves interaction and communication. It’s not a neutral experience at all nor is there a neutral within it. Yes there is awareness of your own living system and an appreciation of separateness but also a recognition of the interwoven nature of touch through synchrony, empathy, and resonance. We touch and we join to a degree. That’s the power of relational touch to bring reflection through experience of another. We bring a new reality of connectedness to body tissues, fluids and potency when we touch our clients and it’s this reference that inspires the body to reorganise, transform and to connect with its biodynamic health.