When I perceive the chair it is the object in space that I see, not a mental image of a chair. I don't think the Austin line works here. By the way, I am coming to regret having chosen the term 'subjectivism'. In the moral philosophy programme I stick to the more usual term 'solipsism' in order to clearly distinguish that theory from moral 'subjectivism'. A matrix is just a table.
Spatial movement involves going to an adjacent position on the matrix.
And so on. The point about keeping the laws of nature going' was intended as a defence of solipsism against the point made in 142. I think one has to realise here where one has simply ceased to ask intelligible questions. It is simply a brute fact that the laws of nature don't change. On Husserl, the point here is that there is a solipsistic reading of arguments for the necessity of associating experience with a body, or for the necessity of 'recognising' other people.