Is how monkeys cross a space.
But don’t we do the same when we create our web-of-knowledge, just imagined connections spun from point to point. From reference point to reference point. But the reference points themselves rest on nothing…towers built on clouds…
Íf you analogy is anything to go by, the referent points are attached to trees.
Perhaps tree could be a metaphpor for experience, which is usually the basis for assumptions and knowledge.
As Fixed just pointed out, the metaphor would only work were the monkeys to cross spaces by relying on groundless, baseless structures – literally, the exact opposite of trees. As such, your metaphor completely undermines your contention and reinforces that which you seem to want to oppose.
Good stuff!!!
Unlike other animals, we humans ask why. We seem to need a sense of something stable in order to cope with our experience of flux. So, we look at the stars and connect the dots–there’s a dog, a bear, an archer, etc. We also connect the dots between life events in which we realize some sense of personal stability and raison d’etre. Fantasy, IMHO, has nothing to do with it. Another example is the concept of time. On a gut level we realize that we experience only motion and change. Our clocks and schedules give us a handle on what to do when. Without these concepts of regularities we humans would have no sense of personal bearings. Fantasy? Only in abstract speculation. In experiences of human minds pragmatics turns fantasy into applicable reality.
You could be saying that our knowledge is coherent but does not really correspond.
Trees suggest an organic growth, something natural, I chose the towers because towers are built, i.e. they’re artifical but they rest on clouds i.e. non-certainty.
I had more in mind the way in which people simply repeat the words they read and hear from the myriad of sources out-there. They just swing-by them, then swing-off again depending on their current needs…without actually…inhabiting them.
Literally, the exact opposite of a tree? What would that be, a hole? Anyway, I can’t make much sense out of your words…a branch too far, amigo.
Nicely put. Although I’d remove the “is” statement. Our knowledge can be coherent without necessarily corresponding.
And if there were not clouds what do the towers stand on? In the void? But they are still towers, what is a tower? If a tower is a belief then what is a belief? Something about the person, because a belief is something a person beliefs so the monkey is jumping from himself to himself to himself, but maybe he is cloudy or hazy and not strong like a tree or a castle. But nothing doesn’t exist so he jumps to something anyway.
There are clouds. And the towers are reference points which may or may not include beliefs and beliefs about oneself. What is a belief? A reference point 
.
Yeah so a reference point is pretty stable or are you talking about insane people who say like: I am a person, a person is a zebra because I now refer a person to the belief I have just invented that a person is a zebra so because I am a person I am a zebra? I don’t understand can you give me please an example of a referencepoint jumping ape, which reference points does he jump from that are castles on clouds?
The notion of stability is a good one, I guess you could say that is why I chose the image of towers. A tower suggests history, it’s survived time, is built up, and has inhabitants. I would say that someone’s belief that they are a zebra lacks the substance to become a tower. If it does have the substance, they are more than likely in a hospital.
Consider this, when a fish leaves the water, his only points of reference in understanding his new land is what he has already experienced in the water and the things he has learnt in the water. These tenets of his understanding, his reference points, may not accurately correspond to the new land but he uses them nonetheless. And everything new is perceived relative (pivoted to) to everything old, like a swinging branch. Knowledge is a half-truth.