Still subject to object?

I realise this is an old journal but I felt the urge to comment anyway. I hope you don't mind.

I have skimmed over a bit of this, the first few points. So far only a few strike me as... logical, if that's the right word. The illusion of change, the illusion of time and space (less so I think) . But even in those theories I see flaws (maybe they are only flaws to me, sorry).

I think the general topic of the page is being looked at from a very inhuman point of view, and yet a point of view that requires human thought to think that these ideas are valid. If that makes any sense.

At any rate, I think most of these things aren't illusions because people don't think they're illusions. People see and hear objects, consider themselves individuals, measure time and space, and feel love. I thnk that's all it takes for it to exist- somebody to feel it.
But that's going into the illusion of cause and effect isn't it?
But I think if people can feel love, and are affected by love (even if that effect isn't real) than love has to be real, because that's how people see it. It has that much influence on somebody it's real to them. And we see and feel these objects so they are so. And because of this we can't be the universe.

But maybe that's just me.
But it does bring things up I haven't thought about in a long time.
It's been a while since I've tried to visualize the limits/lack of limits of space and time, thanks for refreshing my mind. I know I'll be up for hours tonight thinking about it.