Time Cube and what seems to be the point

Background information

I recently found Gene Ray's text about Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Time Cube" and after a while of pondering, I realized there is an interpretation under which it makes some sense. I honestly don't care if the author himself agrees with my intepretation of his text, I'm presenting here the only interpretation that makes sense to me.

Short summary

I believe that the Time Cube theory is an elaborate example to show that all classifications and dichotomies are man made, and that existence is defined by recognition of a dichotomy. Thus, the theory would conclude that there is no god other than how man defines the world, and the definition is up to arbitrary choice. The 4-day dichotomy is an example of such choice and serves no other purpose.

The main concern would appear to be that the academia and religions are in position to define how people perceive the world. From point of view of subjective idealism, this would mean that these institutions have the power to define the world itself.

Detailed interpretation

Concept of existence

The theory talks a lot about existence, especially repeatedly in context of "zero value existence". Roughly speaking, to say that something exists it has to be bound and it has to make a difference if it isn't present. In this context, existence is defined by recognition of a dichotomy, a way to divide things into distinct groups. Obviously, classifying things into groups requires an observer which performs the act, as of such all existence stems from human observation. This can be seen equivalent to George Berkeley's philosophy of subjective idealism, "to be is to be perceived".

Large amounts of text deals with opposites, e.g. "Universe and everything within is composed of Opposites". Given the above definition of existence, Opposites are to be understood roughly equivalent with existence. Specifically, opposites refers to the two groups of a specific dichotomy which define a single existence. "Opposites create opposites" means that you can't have one without having the other, for instance shadows cannot exist without light and the other way around. In a way this is similar to chinese concepts of yin and yang.

"Zero value existence" is used often in the theory, in context of earth hemispheres equating to zero value and opposite sexes equating a zero value. This means that dichotomies are by themselves zero value when considered as their sum, which makes perfect sense since doing so invalidates the defined division. If both men and women are both considered as mere "human", you have lost the value of the distinction.

Concept of creation

"God claimed to have created a single day rotation of Earth. I have created simultaneous 4 day rotation of Earth. Why do you worship such a stupid God?"

The time cube theory defines that creation is equivalent to defining a dichotomy. Since such definitions form all existence, all creation and the existence of universe is man made.

The created things exist as long as someone recognizes the dichotomy that has been defined. When Gene Ray makes statements like "add the opposites together and humans cease to exist" he doesn't mean that the so called physical existence would cease to be. What I believe he means, is that the concept of "human" will die if nobody pays attention to the distinction of what is human and what isn't.

One might ask what physical existence is, then, if the theory only concerns of observation. However, nothing exists without being perceived and perception is the only proof we have that there is such a thing to be considered as "physical existence". Physical existence can thus be considered equivalent to what we observe, and therefore subject to observer's whim to categorize it as something. From this follows that definitions of categories for observation is what ultimately creates all physical existence.

Evil singularity

Since all existence is defined to be formed of opposites, what does it mean if something doesn't have an acceptable opposite? This is what Time Cube theory refers as evil singularity, the inability to recognize that all existence has another side. Evil singularity is equivalent to any absolute truth.

"You cannot think opposite of what you were taught to think" is basically an explanation of why the theory refers to educators as evil. The "Academic Singularity" means that people are taught "truths" in school, learning through memorization instead of thinking. "Educators teach assumed math" probably refers to schools teaching mathematical formulas as truths to be learned instead of as tools to manipulate information. Real mathematics doesn't create anything out of nothing, as it relies on pre-existing definitions.

Concept of word

"Word is most efficient form of enslavement"

"Teaching singularity equals death by Word"

"Do you care to know that Cubic Creation debunks the Word God and Word World of the educated stupid human Word Animal?"

Word means the teaching a dichotomy. This is done by anyone who has the power of mass communication, i.e. schools, churches and the government. So, Ray has a problem with people being taught to merely know things instead of being taught to think.

Having the ability to define widely accepted dichotomies is indeed a very powerful thing and to be feared. Since the human brain is specialized in pattern matching, the ability to define what kind of patterns everyone recognizes and how people group things is a power to alter beliefs. In context of the theory, it could be said that power of mass communication is the power to recreate all existence.

4 Day Cube

Trolling for attention?

To be honest, I don't know what Ray has for cubes, but I believe it's a way to get people to focus on the issue of dichotomies. Anyone can define things, thus anyone can create existence. Not considering the 4 day cube, everything on the Time Cube theory description seems to oppose the idea that some dichotomies are more natural than others. Dividing the earth into four sections and claiming it's absolutely that way would naturally make people think it's nonsense and that any dichotomy could be chosen, including infinite division, thus hopefully making people questioning the validity of a dichotomy.

Unfortunately for him, people are questioning his authority and sanity instead and attacking his theory with ad hominem. In some ways this makes sense, as it takes a great deal of time to think through his theory which isn't being presented in the most coherent way possible. I'm sure he sees this as a further proof that the "Evil Singularity Brotherhood" is in control, making people only trust sources of authority as defined by the Brotherhood.

The real point?

My belief is that the real point is that you shouldn't believe what you are taught, and to illustrate this the author is trying to teach you something controversial. He appears to believe that teaching the established dichotomies as truths instead of debatable issues is wrong. He also opposes religion for the same reason, since religions provide absolute truths for humanity without making their followers question the validity of the given values.

Other crap on the site

The text is thoroughly contaminated with Ray's own beliefs and ideologies, some of which contradict my interpretation. For example, he says "The male god singularity and same sex trinity equates denouncing motherhood and supporting a state of queers - with a price of HIV devastating life on Earth" which sounds a little bit homophobic to me.

It seems to be that Ray himself believes in many of the established values of the society. The theory of evil singularity is a little bit undermined since his own stance would make him a part of the "Evil Singularity Brotherhood" as well.

There's also content that could be seen as supporting some existing racial dichotomies, there are rants about nuclear waste, there's something about "4th corner perspective dimension" too for which I cannot find any interpretation. Having said all of this, it's completely possible that he's indeed a crackpot. That doesn't change his message though, and I believe that the issue about taught dichotomies is completely valid although I wish he was a better writer.

Updated 2006-03-31, Matti Nikki <muzzy@iki.fi>