Claim. When Ham felt ashamed of noah’s nakedness and covered him (Gen 9:22-23), he made a condition for Satan to invade — recapitulating adam and eve’s post-fall shame at their own nakedness — thereby breaking the foundation-of-substance that Noah’s family was about to lay, since shame indicated kinship-of-blood with Satan rather than the innocent intimacy God required.
Elaboration. Per DP §2.2, the Ham episode is structurally specific to Noah’s family — not a generic prohibition against regarding nakedness with shame.
Because the ark recapitulated creation, Noah’s post-flood position recapitulated Adam’s pre-Fall position. God expected Noah’s family to react to his nakedness without shame — recovering “the joyful heart which He had felt when looking at Adam and Eve in their innocence before the Fall.” The test was Ham’s, as second son occupying abel’s position; since Noah (unlike Adam) had made the symbolic offering himself, the Abel-position was vacant and required Ham to become “inseparably one in heart” with his father.
Shame here was theologically diagnostic: Adam and Eve’s post-fall shame was an indication of their inner reality — bond of blood-ties with Satan formed by sin with sexual parts. Ham’s shame at Noah’s nakedness, and the act of covering, was tantamount to acknowledging the same satanic kinship in Noah’s family, supplying Satan the object-partner relation needed to invade them.
Noah cursed Ham; the foundation-of-substance could not be established; the providence transferred to Abraham. DP’s distinctive reading of Gen 9: against mainstream readings (literal incest, voyeurism, paternal mockery, Canaanite-curse etiology), DP folds the act into the fall’s sexual-shame recapitulation.
See also. The test-of-shame frame is unique to Noah’s family per DP’s own caveat (§2.2 close).