Can the length of the life line predict 'longevity'?

pravin kumar wrote:Martijn,

I started palm reading in 1989 and within a year I met quite a few people who had short life lines and one of the person was 65 year old whereas his life line ended at 56/57. He looked so healthy and fit that I cannot even describe him to be nearer to any health problems. I went and checked in William Benham's book which says two things: Either there will be a support line to the life line like Inner Life line or Line of Mars or Fate Line and second option is if the Will is strong then the line might get extended.

In any case once we come across mistake in our readings it is quite natural to look for the answers and I did just that. Similarly I believe any serious student of this science will also do likewise. Whether this old method or new the fact remains the Life Line ending may not indicate short life.

Pravin Kumar

Martijn (admin) wrote:

RishiRahul wrote:

RishiRahul wrote:
Martjin,

First allow me to say that these crafts like palmistry etc do not work in 'BLACK & WHITE' terms as 'YES' or/and 'NO'.
You & others are aware that No singular principle in such crafts works perfect, for which it is not a perfect Science; and I am better contented to call it a craft.

Similarly in LOGIC things are not black & white; though Logic is similar to Maths (2+2=4).

Now if you read the above 'quotes' it would be BEST understood.

Even then allow me to respond to your present re framed query, which is:"Rishi, do you support this 'modern approach'?
PS. It would be just fine if you answer my question with a 'yes' or a 'no'.
[/color]

Rishi[u]= Answering in 'Yes' or 'No' is not enough to establish something in such crafts.
The answer is that I that support the approach which is approached as modern, but is an much older concept (ex: the line of vitalis).

RishiRahul

P.S: There are reasons I try not to take part in giving explanations while predictions at most times, as it could be held to 'black & white' scrutiny like Maths is.

RishiRahul

... Rishi, I am not sure how to understand your support. However, I will respect that you don't want to give me a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Rishi= Support for what? I support the modern approach as a progression of the old, but NOTt as a separation from the old.
You want the words from my mouth as yes or no...... I am not fine with this as this is a palmistry thread Why? because palmistry principles (which I had also mentioned earlier in this thread) should not be read in a 'black & white' manner; as this cause serious mistakes/wrong perceptions..


I can only hope that you can agree with me that the old myth (which suggests that the length of the life line reflects the age of death), should better not be described as a 'modern' perception.
Rishi=Why would you hope this?
In any case you should read the earlier posts in this thread which suggest that the supposedly old myths can be misunderstood due to literature lost/gaps in communication.
Even the old myths mentioned the life line as line of 'VITALIS', which you mentioned as the modern thought.

(Because otherwise your answer could be perceived as a rethoric attempt to turn things upside-down)
Rishi= I fail to understand what you mean by this!? Even after such repeated explanations

I hope this makes sense.

pravin kumar wrote:Dear Martijn,

I copy paste what Rishiji has written already:

Because only in the old view the length of the life line is associated with the age of death... while in the new view this is recognized as a myth, because one should not confuse 'vitality' with 'longevity'!
Rishi= The old liyerature mentioned the line of life as the line of vitalis.

Rishi= May be we did not understand what the old view actually meant to say.
This is to remind that the old view does mention the life line as the line of vitalis.

Life line is the line of vitalis or I would say Vitality. It follows it does not indicate the age of death. So what you say and he says and I too confirm that line of life does not indicate age.
Rishi== When the line of life is there & there is a cut/gash there it may signify death; of course confirmed by other lines/methods.

Rishiji correct me if I am wrong.

Pravin Kumar

RishiRahul wrote:
Rishi= Support for what? I support the modern approach as a progression of the old, but NOTt as a separation from the old.
You want the words from my mouth as yes or no...... I am not fine with this as this is a palmistry thread Why? because palmistry principles (which I had also mentioned earlier in this thread) should not be read in a 'black & white' manner; as this cause serious mistakes/wrong perceptions..

Well Rishi, while you are suggesting that this matter should not be treated as a black-white issue... and you are trying to suggest that you are able to support the old- and the new approach. But beyond reporting your support for both approach you have not described at all how both approaches can be connected with eachother.

Meanwhile, I think it is pretty obvious that many authors in the field of hand reading today make firm statements that the old 'myth' is not true at all, see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2110-can-the-length-of-the-life-line-predict-longevity#22692

This is what the TOP 10 bestseller authors write in their books:

- Johnny Fincham ("the old nonsense about a short or broken lifeline presaging an early demise");
- Dennis Fairchild ("The Life Line does't reveal how long you'll live");
- Richard Webster ("It is impossible to tell when someones will die by looking at their life line");
- Lori Reid ("The length of it does not, contrary to some popular opnion, reflect longevity or duration of life").

I think there is no sensible way to claim that anybody is able to support both the old and new approach... because there is a clear contradiction between the old myth and the modern approach (the authors that I have quoted all present statements that can be recognized as a description of this contradiction).


NOTICE: Despite that it is only common sense that 'longevity' typically results from balanced/healty 'vitality'... this does not implicate that any sign of 'vitality' can be used as a specific predictor for 'longevity'. This simple approach makes 'vitality' and 'longevity' two seperate topics (again, I am not denying that there is a fundamental biological connection between both topics).


PS. I hope we can find some agreement about the following observation:

In the old approach the life line was associated with 'vitality' and 'longevity'; while in the new approach only the aspect of 'vitality' is still being used.

(And one could say that the 2nd aspect related to 'longevity' in the old approach has not stood the test of time... but of course: the followers of the old approach might not agree with this rather factual description).

Martijn (admin) wrote:

RishiRahul wrote:
Rishi= Support for what? I support the modern approach as a progression of the old, but NOTt as a separation from the old.
You want the words from my mouth as yes or no...... I am not fine with this as this is a palmistry thread Why? because palmistry principles (which I had also mentioned earlier in this thread) should not be read in a 'black & white' manner; as this cause serious mistakes/wrong perceptions..

Well Rishi, while you are suggesting that this matter should not be treated as a black-white issue...
Rishi==May we know if you think whether it/Palmistry should be treated in a black & white manner or not?
As because your question suggests that you doubt this.

and you are trying to suggest that you are able to support the old- and the new approach.
Rishi==Yes. Together with Synergy; not as separated.

But beyond reporting your support for both approach you have not described at all how both approaches can be connected with eachother.
Rishi==Firstly my support for the old & new is collective; while yours is is separated; & I was answering your questions your queries in reference to your context/questions.....a one way traffic till now.
Let us hope for better communication; then we can share with understanding.


Meanwhile, I think it is pretty obvious that many authors in the field of hand reading today make firm statements that the old 'myth' is not true at all, see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2110-can-the-length-of-the-life-line-predict-longevity#22692
Rishi=[/size= Yes, its true that many would like to believe so. The top 10 in the internet is more a popularity As palmistry is very popular subject.
Something popular is not equable with Quality. Or would you deny this statement?!
Its okay if you are attracted to the popular view. I have no problems as popularity has its own rightful place.

This is what the TOP 10 bestseller authors write in their books:

- Johnny Fincham ("the old nonsense about a short or broken lifeline presaging an early demise");
- Dennis Fairchild ("The Life Line does't reveal how long you'll live");
- Richard Webster ("It is impossible to tell when someones will die by looking at their life line");
- Lori Reid ("The length of it does not, contrary to some popular opnion, reflect longevity or duration of life").

I think there is no sensible way to claim that anybody is able to support both the old and new approach... because there is a clear contradiction between the old myth and the modern approach (the authors that I have quoted all present statements that can be recognized as a description of this contradiction).
[size=18]Rishi==To refresh minds, I had mentioned about the old literature being lost much during the dark ages etc in the earlier posts of this thread (wich you didnt refer to),;
& also that the line of mentalis (life) was named in the older ages, & you call it modern.
I have built my own perception through Literature & the experience obtained not in 'black & white' manner.
So if you would like to believe in popularity it okay for Your belief, & whoever believes so.

NOTICE: Despite that it is only common sense that 'longevity' typically results from balanced/healty 'vitality'... this does not implicate that any sign of 'vitality' can be used as a specific predictor for 'longevity'. This simple approach makes 'vitality' and 'longevity' two seperate topics (again, I am not denying that there is a fundamental biological connection between both topics).
Rishi==Could it be denied that the olden palmistry denied this.
They named the line of life as the line of vitalis.
N.B: Most of the book explanations were given after/during the dark ages.


PS. I hope we can find some agreement about the following observation:

In the old approach the life line was associated with 'vitality' and 'longevity'; while in the new approach only the aspect of 'vitality' is still being used.
Rishi==Please read the N.B. above,
Regarding the life line both the old & new agree that is the line of vitalis; while the line of line is the most major indicator in palms about the physical life & health hurts.


(And one could say that the 2nd aspect related to 'longevity' in the old approach has not stood the test of time... but of course: the followers of the old approach might not agree with this rather factual description).

RishiRahul wrote:... Life is progressive, as palmistry etc. One should learn to bridge the gaps between the old & new like roots & flowers that blossom from the roots with intelligence/humility; ...

Rishi, I recognize how this 'poetic/philosophic' statement can reflect your approach (or beleive). And I would understand if some may like it very much... but for me your approach displays a lack of recognition for the essential contradiction between the old and the new approach. You only described that you prefer to work with both approaches, without describing how you can do it exactly (even after I invited you to explain your view with more details).

Sure, I have no problem at all to agree with your notification that 'popularity' may not necessarily represent quality. But I observe that you did not present any argument/reason (nor any piece of evidence) for your suggestion that the modern view could include a lack of quality. But meanwhile... I think there is no way for you to deny that we could actually argue likewise regarding the (former) 'popularity' of the old view!

(Sorry, I observe again that are using rethorics only; e.g. you used a quick reference to the issue of quality... without making any specific observation at all. While from my side I could argue that I have already described that there is scientific support for the modern view - based on 2 studies from the US and UK - and the same is true for the guidelines described by the TOP 10 authors + some other significant authors. Therefore I think it would have made more sense if you had questioned the old view... while now it looks like you are questioning - indirectly - only the new view)


I have no further questions for you to answer, but so far it appears that you deny that there is any 'contradiction' between the old- and the new view (more specific: the old view says that the length of the life line represents the age of death, while the new view says that the length of the life line does not represent the age of death... and therefore some authors have stated that this specific aspect in the old view is 'nonsense' - see my quote from Arnold Holtzman's work).

NOTICE: In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

RishiRahul wrote:... Life is progressive, as palmistry etc. One should learn to bridge the gaps between the old & new like roots & flowers that blossom from the roots with intelligence/humility; ...

Rishi, I recognize how this 'poetic/philosophic' statement can reflect your approach (or beleive). And I would understand if some may like it very much... but for me your approach displays a lack of recognition for the essential contradiction between the old and the new approach. You only described that you prefer to work with both approaches, without describing how you can do it exactly (even after I invited you to explain your view with more details).
Rishi= Basing my approach by a supposed 'poetic/philosophic' statement; & But the other factors mentioned in the other posts of this thread show 'Bias' in judgement.
This would have been easier for you if you attempted replying in 'reference to the context'; which I suggested, because I was expecting this.
Also I have the words never mentioned 'in these words' or other words to imply that "I prefer to work with approaches.
This is a distortion of facts'.



Sure, I have no problem at all to agree with your notification that 'popularity' may not necessarily represent quality. But I observe that you did not present any argument/reason (nor any piece of evidence) for your suggestion that the modern view could include a lack of quality. But meanwhile... I think there is no way for you to deny that we could actually argue likewise regarding the (former) 'popularity' of the old view!
Rishi= I do not need to convince you or any person regarding anything.
I would prefer discussions with someone who would believe that applied palmistry is not like 2+2=4.
The new view arise from the old view. Youagain missed out the points which I earlier mentioned.
I hope this is not intentional.

(Sorry, I observe again that are using rethorics only; e.g. you used a quick reference to the issue of quality... without making any specific observation at all. While from my side I could argue that I have already described that there is scientific support for the modern view - based on 2 studies from the US and UK - and the same is true for the guidelines described by the TOP 10 authors + some other significant authors. Therefore I think it would have made more sense if you had questioned the old view... while now it looks like you are questioning - indirectly - only the new view)
Rishi= jGood. You should just follow & believe what makes sense to you, particularly when you are uncomfortable with proper logic.
I do not have time for this when certain points mentioned by me with so much effort has been overlooked.
I do not get benefit by separating the old & the new view; while you get benefit by doing so.
Which means our thinking does not see eye to eye.

RishiRahul




I have no further questions for you to answer, but so far it appears that you deny that there is any 'contradiction' between the old- and the new view (more specific: the old view says that the length of the life line represents the age of death, while the new view says that the length of the life line does not represent the age of death... and therefore some authors have stated that this specific aspect in the old view is 'nonsense' - see my quote from Arnold Holtzman's work).

NOTICE: In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Rishi, I think we better agree to disagree.
Thank you for your input in this topic.

Martijn (admin) wrote:
I think this is quite a milestone in the history of hand reading:

As foreseen in one of my earlier posts, I can now report that the final version of the 2012 Palmistry books TOP 10 no longer includes any authors who support the old myth about the length of the life line, see:

https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2110-can-the-length-of-the-life-line-predict-longevity#22692


NOTICE: Nathaniel Altman's book 'Palmistry: The Universal Guide' has entered for the very first time the TOP 10; inside the post above I have included a quote from his book which shows that he no longer supports the old myth.

(But I should add that his earlier books suggest that in time Altman clearly has changed his position regarding this issue... so his earlier works should no longer be assumed to reflect his current ideas!)