KEMET UNIVERSITY HOME › Forums › Integral Clergy of Kemet Studies Program › Integral Clergy of Ancient Egypt Studies course-Assignment-handling the heart and its related behaviors › Reply To: Integral Clergy of Ancient Egypt Studies course-Assignment-handling the heart and its related behaviors
Asar Maat Assignment – Hemu communication reflection
A-How did this communication exchange differ from the recommendations of the MAAT teachings each student selected and the communication skills and the Gottman principles that were discussed? List the applicable principles citing the forum or video time and date of the applicable discussion and or principles.
The communication exchange between Asar Djehuty Mes and Asar Anpu differed from the precept #25 “I have not allowed my self to be consumed be fire of irritation, anger, fury or rage,” in that it took a turn where the fire of irritation became expressed in the statements of both personalities. The choice of words e.g., “I will remind you each time if I have too,” and “Everything you have written makes absolutely no sense. Like I said and will say again for the last time…” show clear indications of irritation.
The exchange also differed from precept #33 “I have not harmed anyone by causing offense, or through deceit, causing calamities, damage, injury, destruction or mischief,” with regard to the statements causing offense. The issue in-sighting the exchange was an inadvertent offense reference to Asar Djehuty Mes as Asar. What transpired was a lack of clarity on Asar Anpu’s part that he made that offense. His attempts to request clarification of what he did were not clear to Asar Djehuty Mes and apparently others as we did not interject offering our understanding of the issue or clarification. Asar Djehuty Mes’s response held a bit of deceit in that he withheld further explanation or clarification about what the issue was and was initially directing the statement to Asar Anpu, indirectly. The offense continues to compound one statement upon the next.
The deviation from precept #37 “I have not spoken with arrogance, conceit, puffed up self-importance, an air of superiority, or with a condescending attitude,” likely contributed to the offense both parties experiences from one another. Both parties made repeated statements in a condescending tone, despite explicit statements to the contrary, (e.g., I mean nor respect, I love you anyway). At one point Asar Djehuty Mes acknowledged an interpersonal history and attempting to engage in communication to resolve the conflict. Asar Anpu declined this offer couched in what could be interpreted as an air of superiority referencing previous exchange where ADM was a participant in one of his groups.
B-How could the communication interaction have been different if the MAAT teachings each student selected and the communication skills and the Gottman principles that were discussed had been applied? List the applicable principles.
Interestingly the Gottman principles complement the Maat teachings and provide a number of skills to help the communication to interaction go differently.
First, the Gottman antidote for criticism, (which equates to precept #33 causing offense) is using gentle start up with “I” statements instead of “you” which can sound accusatory and critical. Although, both parties used variations of “I” statements the follow-up with an-Maat and critical tones over shadowed the expression of need that can come with an “I” statement. The “I” statement can support a more respectful exchange.
Second, the Gottman skill of building appreciation would have been helpful and in alignment with precept # 37, as opposed to the contempt in the form of sarcasm and hostile humor displayed in the interaction. The participants both made attempts to reflect an appreciation for one another, but the statements were couched or overshadowed by the an-Maat contemptuous tone/statements of superiority. It also would have helped for there to be an expression of patience and understanding for the fact that there unclear miscommunication occurring.
Third, Gottman’s concept of defensiveness seen in the communication interaction could have been countered by actions in alignment with precept #25 and Gottman’s antidote for defensiveness of taking responsibility. This was difficult for Asar Anpu to enact because of the lack of clarity about what he was doing that was offensive to Asar Djehuty Mes. The tone of irritation and frustration intensified into defensiveness. An exercise of patience to obtain clarify between the parties may have helped to curb the build-up of defensiveness.
Lastly, there was a clear point of Gottman’s stonewalling in the communication interaction when Asar Anpu indicated he no longer would communicate with Asar Djehuty Mes. Gottman’s antidote of self-soothing and allowing time (at least 30 minutes) to step away from the discussion, might have aided the interaction in going differently. Although the text interaction occurred over a period of time where there were breaks in the communication, they did not result in re-engaging in a more productive way. Asar Djehuty Mes’s request for a separate conversation was a form of stepping away and taking a time-out, yet again the other “Horsemen of the Apocalypse” were already fully moving ahead to curb the conversation.
Htp Asar Maat E.