In biology and, especially, in its key part - genetics - the time has come for a reassessment of values. It will probably be explosive. The words and concepts of “gene” and “triplet genetic code”, so unloved by many during the Lysenko era, are finally universally accepted, and it seems that everything is clear here. but here’s the paradox: this appearance of clarity has become an intellectual brake. however, the avalanche of new experimental facts no longer fits into the recognized and, yesterday, revolutionary ideas. These new facts are amazing, excite the imagination, and beckon us forward. Take, for example, the problem of “selfish” DNA, or the strange inefficiency of the synthesis of pre-information RNA, or the seemingly unnecessary intron-exon breakdown of genes. Take the problem of contextual long-range orientations when choosing amino acids in the process of protein synthesis or the phenomenon of laser and soliton radiation from DNA. And this is only a small part of the “anomalous” phenomena in biology. Particularly interesting is the situation with the famous Wobble hypothesis of F. Crick, which hides behind the sonorous idea of a seemingly random “swing” (substitution) of the third nucleotide in a codon the main theoretical difficulty of the triplet code paradigm - its homonymy. Coding identical homonym doublets must accurately mean (encode) one or another different amino acid, and the ribosome makes this exact, unambiguous choice of amino acid. But how? Genetics and molecular biology cannot now answer this question; they are frozen in the phase of misunderstanding of the spelling rules for writing protein “texts” from amino acid “letters”. In other words, it’s time to reconsider the problem of the genetic code. And why is it genetic? It's protein. As for the genetic code, as a program for constructing the entire biosystem, it is significantly different - heteromultiplet, multidimensional, pluralistic and, finally, figurative wave.