 are identical. It's not like you're just dealing with a little personality, the Rhonda or the Keith or the Beverly or the Tom. You're dealing with the whole galaxies, the whole cosmos is your self-concept. It's not a little personality that you have to somehow be free of the personality and transcend the personality. It's not like there's a little Rhonda mask and a Keith mask and a Beverly mask and a Tom mask, but if you can just figure out how to lay aside the mask that you can be a true, genuine, authentic person, the whole world and the whole cosmos as it's constructed, the belief in economics, the belief in politics, the belief in medicine and sickness, the whole thing is the self-concept. None of it is true, none of it has any reality and if you believe in part of it, you really believe in all of it because since it is one, there's no way to give up any kind of a shred of it without having to really give up everything. So when we read that paragraph to learn this course requires willingness to question every value that you hold. We're talking about every value, every single value. And under every value is a belief. In fact, he's using it. You're really questioning every belief. Yes, the value of the belief. You could put them interchangeably. Yeah, because I have to believe that it has some value. I mean, there has to be an ordering. If there's a value placed on anything, I have to afford it. I have to fit in somewhere on my hierarchy. High or low, take your pick. And literally, it's all or nothing. If the belief in separation is where this control issue really is rooted, and the belief in separation is what seems to maintain this whole world of illusion, then the whole world has to be questioned to come to an end of this authority problem or this control issue. As long as I believe I can make myself, as long as I believe that this menagerie of images is mine to choose from, you know, that I can choose from the menagerie of images, then I'm denying that my only real choice is to accept my reality as spirit. So that's what we... The control issue is going to keep to spring up over and over and over again. And it's like the problem will just seem to keep coming and coming and coming and coming because it's not about an issue, a control issue about finances or about power or control in relationships or about power control in employee or employee relationships. It's not about the United States government. It's not about the system. It's not about anything that it seems to have been about. It's about believing I can make myself instead of accepting my reality as I was created. And it's also not about avoiding the system for, you know, just saying, well, I'm not going to deal with any of those things out there. You know, when I was talking to Tom today at lunch, one of the things that came up that I was, you know, he didn't see as a real distinction. I said, oh, this is a big distinction is, you know, making the shift at the level of mind first and not making the change at the level of form, you know, because he was saying, well, you know, what's the difference? Whether you do it one place or the other, what's the difference? And I said, well, for what I'm doing, there's a huge difference. It's a critical difference is that, you know, when I was giving him examples because he said, well, I don't see that in what you're doing. And I said, well, I'll give you examples. I can think of, I can think of 10 examples right off the top of my head and I could have given him 30 examples. But I mean, it's like, you know, I said, you know, you're always making the shift in your mind initially and then the form will follow from that. You know, it's not about making the shift in form first and hoping the shift in mind follows from that. Yes. Yeah. And I felt like that was a really big distinction to make. And it is for me. You know, I have to keep remembering that when the temptation is to say, well, if I just didn't have to deal with this thing, finances or whatever, then, you know, I could do what I really want to do or I could think about what I really want to think about. But it's not about never having to deal with finances again. It's about shifting my mind about that. It's a helpful metaphor. I think maybe we can just run that in a little bit and take a look at that one too because a lot of times it's talked about, about changing form as hoping to change the mind or changing the mind and the form will follow. And those are all kind of metaphors because it seems even when that's talked about as if one has had over the course of one's life significant changes in mind or changes in perception. And that's just a metaphor too because in the end it comes down to, we were talking about titling the first pamphlet, mind overhaul, changing your mind about your mind. That the only change of mind that can take place is accepting the atonement. That's the final change, the first and final. It's the only one. And in that sense, it's not even really a change at all in the sense that it's just accepting a correction or it's accepting what is. The thing that seems to have to change isn't. I mean, the thing that seems to have to change is the deceived mind. And it isn't. It doesn't exist. But the thing too about form and mind, it also seems to be as if you can change one, the form or the other. And one thing we'll keep coming at is that since ties and effect are simultaneous and since ideas leave not their source, then it's kind of like what you see is what you get. What you see is what you've asked for in the moment. It's not about one happens before another. It's not even about changing your mind first. And it's kind of like then there'd be like a little time delay and then the form will follow that that perception is that time is simultaneous and perception is simultaneous and so you're always seeing what you believe. Right? So if you look around with the body's eyes and you listen with the body's ears, you're just seeing and hearing what you believe. It's not like there's going to be a time lag like you'll change your mind and then a few days later you'll see a corresponding change in form. You are always looking upon a world that represents what the mind believes. And it's nuts. You know, Jesus is saying whenever you're upset it could seem like, for example, to use Keith's illustration about the busy Saturday night environment at the restaurant. Lessons five, six, and seven. I'm never upset for the reason I think. I think I'm upset because it's so fest-paced here. I think I'm upset because, you know, waiters are shouting at cooks and vice versa. And I think I'm upset because there's no order that's throwing things on plates and this and that. But I'm never upset for the reason I think. I'm upset because I see something that's not there. I mean, that really puts it into a whole context. I'm just seeing a world that doesn't exist. That's upsetting. Elucinating is upsetting. Elucinating is upsetting. I think they think they're immune to hallucination. Yes, that's the upsetting part. It's not anything specific, you know. You could say, oh, I'm so peaceful. The flip side would be I'm so peaceful. I'm sitting here and watching the waves come in and I'm listening to the waves lap up, you know. You could even construct that as this is a much more peaceful environment than that wild Saturday night scene at the restaurant. But it's still, if you're still seeing a world that's not there, you know, that's what's upsetting. You know, the lessons continue on. A meaningless world engenders fear. Why does it engender fear? Because it's unreliable. The world that the body's eyes are perceiving. The body's eyes are seeing and the body's ears are hearing and that's being experienced through the five senses is totally unreliable. It seems to always be changing. There's no stability in it. It seems chaotic. There's no control. That's what makes it seem fearful or that's what makes it seem you can fill in the blank of any derivative of fear.