|
The specific episode is centered on Noah's sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, and the son of Ham, called Canaan. We are told that Noah was found naked one day, and drunken, in his tent. Ham found him there. Apparently with great excitement Ham rushed about and told everybody. Shem and Japheth responded by taking up a garment between them and going backwards over their father to cover their father's nakedness.
When Noah found out what was done, he announced: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall be unto his brethren."
Now, what justice is there in this, in the denunciation of Canaan, who was not even involved in the affair? The comment makes Noah look like a most cruel man. Ah, but was it really a denunciation? Did Noah not rather confront the entire pornographic environment that the son of Ham was growing up in, which would render him a servant of servants if it was not altered? It would trap him into an homogenous thinking with his father's mentality. The fact is Noah is portrayed as the only person in that story who is concerned about the child.
Noah blessed the God of Shem, and added that "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tent's of Shem."
The nature of leadership.
We have two types of leadership indicated in this part of the Noah legend. One is the leadership of Japheth. As Noah pointed out, Japheth shall dwell in the tents of Shem. This is to say that what Japheth represents invariably finds a natural response in the hearts of humanity. In this example the leader and humanity are essentially on the same level though they reflect different types of development and frames of interest. In other words, this type of leadership exists within the context of horizontal diversity, when represented on a matrix.
Now, Noah reemphasized that Canaan would be their servant. Evidently, the isolation of the domain in which this leadership was effective, was recognized to be a problem, even then. Nothing was mentioned that the conflict that Canaan was trapped in, would be resolved.
Now we need to ask, was the role of Noah cast as that of a leader? In a way it was, but his was a different type of leadership. Noah's role was cast to introduce a higher point of reference into the equation. Without his comments the story would have been largely meaningless. Except, Noah's point of reference, apparently, was based in the absolute domain which lies outside the confrontational structure, by which the confrontational structure becomes superseded, and a reflective structure describes the higher process. This is the inevitable result when on takes the confrontation to the n'th degree, that is, if one explores the universe to solve a paradox or conflict. In this case one comes upon the Christ idea and the infinite reality that it represents. By this, one's point of reference is shifted to a higher domain and the entire human scene is put onto a different platform. One of these higher points of reference is the perception that man is the Son of God in the same context that a month is identified in Hebrew texts as "the son of a year."
Can this break the deadlock of isolation that puts mankind's true leadership outside the normal sphere of reference? Perhaps is can. We can explore this by considering how a dead poet once defeated Napoleon.
Friedrich Schiller was a leader of the type of leadership that was ascribed to Noah. His point of reference was evidently founded in the reflective structure that includes the absolute elements that are not a part of the confrontational structure. Schiller, however, operated with both structures simultaneously. He understood mankind's conflicts and encouraged the people to confront those conflicts in their own thinking, and to do this on a specific scientific platform that presents humanity with an extremely high dignity and worth. In other words, he created a new image for humanity that all could aspire to and reflect in their own private lives. By this pioneering effort he recreated this higher point of reference in the minds of those of humanity whom he was in contact with. He worked with the confrontational structure, but even as he did, he introduced the reflective structure of reality. Thus, he could speak with authority about the confrontational domains, and do this in a manner that did not isolate his leadership because his points of reference were now understood by the people of his time. By these means his leadership continued even after he was dead, because his points of reference had become also the people's points of reference on all things.
Next Page
|| - page index -
|| - chapter index -
|| - Exit -
||
|
