which time scale of fate line fits in your practice?

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Hello Stalin, Pravin Kumar & Anu_d,

Sounds to me that each of you describes a different approach to 'time' the fate line.
And I assume that all three of you assume that 'your model' is working just fine (and the models used by others are less 'accurate' etc.).

By the way, there are even more models for timing the 'fate line' available...!


Maybe this collection of different opinions illustrates that 'timing the lines of the hand' is probably just a matter of perception and preference!

And a sensible implication of these different perceptions appears to be: that (very likely) none of these models are really 'successfull', nor better than other models.
That is: 'not successful' in the sense that none of these models have been accepted by the majority of palmists!

But nevertheless, I am aware that predictive palmistist usually 'claims' that his/her model usually works just fine...!!!?

Doesn't this worry you?


PS. I have noticed the same patterns for 'timing' the life line, heart line and head line: there are various models available for those lines as well; and I think the 'conflicting' facts described by the various models... explain why many hand readers today do not use any of these 'time' models .

anu_d wrote:
==>Dear Martijn,
If one predicts using "his" model......and he gets the right answers that are validted.....then I have no worry.
Right answer means he is able to validate the past events in the +/-1 year window

Proof is in the pudding....isn't it

Martijn (admin) wrote:

anu_d wrote:
==>Dear Martijn,
If one predicts using "his" model......and he gets the right answers that are validted.....then I have no worry.
Right answer means he is able to validate the past events in the +/-1 year window

Proof is in the pudding....isn't it

Dear Anu_d,

From my point of view, my perception on this 'pudding' is... I seen no proof at all! - I only see only conflicting models and unsubstantiated claims/observations.

==>.actually I do not see a VAST conflict between models especially in the early to mid life ranges.
In this perspective, using a different method... should simply lead to a different result!
I hope we can agree on that!?

==>>a slightly diffrent result not a VASTLY diffrent result
And basically, if everybody is using a different method... and finds EXACTLY the same result:

==>>Who said EXACTLY...that's where you have gone tangential....you assumed EXACTLY All 'time'-models factually violate Holtzman's fundamental no.1 rule of modern hand reading! (I hope you are aware of that rule)

==>>I am not..please share the Holtzman's rule
.

anu_d wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Dear Anu_d,

From my point of view, my perception on this 'pudding' is... I seen no proof at all! - I only see only conflicting models and unsubstantiated claims/observations.

==>.actually I do not see a VAST conflict between models especially in the early to mid life ranges.
In this perspective, using a different method... should simply lead to a different result!
I hope we can agree on that!?

==>>a slightly diffrent result not a VASTLY diffrent result
And basically, if everybody is using a different method... and finds EXACTLY the same result:

==>>Who said EXACTLY...that's where you have gone tangential....you assumed EXACTLY All 'time'-models factually violate Holtzman's fundamental no.1 rule of modern hand reading! (I hope you are aware of that rule)

==>>I am not..please share the Holtzman's rule
.

Hello Anu_d,

Holtzman's fundamental no.1 rule says (page 2 in 'Psychodiagnostic Chirology in Analysis ande Therapy'):

"There is one rule in hand reading in psychological diagnosis which overrides all others. This one rule holds that everything modifies everything else. Everything has an influence on everything else, and everything is influenced by everything else."

But this rule is applicable beyond 'psychological diagnosis' as well. For, it relates to a major difference between:
1- the 'absolute' classic Indian approach (which origins in the Vedas),
2 -the 'complex' modern approach... which relates basically to the 'art of combination'!

All timing models use a principle which basically presents a conflict regarding the 'art of combination'... because I have never seen in any of these models that using combinations is a requirement to find the ages of events.

So, this might explain why the 'timing models' have been popular for a while (during the 19th + 20th century), but I have never seen any clue which says that these 'timing models' were an element of the classic Indian approach.

Have you?


Anu_d, ... thanks for confirming that the various models indeed produce different results!

And yes, I agree: we could argue about the implications of these difference - especially since regarding 'age' there is factually little space for arguing.

An age 'prediction' is correct, or it is not correct... accepting imperfections combined with using 'loose' criteria... might actually confirm that these methods at the end probably do not work anyway. By the way, from my point of view this also explains why so many different models became manifest. Many of the palmistry experts who use these models, 'claim' that they have created their own variant, etc. etc.


Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic for discussion!!

Anu_d, thank you for your input so far.

pravin kumar wrote:[b][i]

Dear Martijn,

I did not say that others following different age prediction are wrong. I follow what I have found comes right quite often. Benham takes 70 yeas from the bottom rascatte to the edge of the Saturn Finger and Narayan Dutt Shrimali takes it as 100 years and Cheiro takes it as 91 or 98 (Don't remember exactly what). Others are welcome to theri way of calculating. I follow the simple principle of first finding certain facts from the palm and give age prediction and from the verification I get as to the correctness or otherwise of the age I go further accordingly making slight adjustment. What I state is what I follow and others are welcome to use their methods.

Pravin Kumar

stalin.v wrote:Hello martijn,

Too Hilarious....

Holzman's rule of "everything" seems to be nothing more than "Nothing"

Dear Stalin...

I like bananas... but how 'smart' is your comment really???
Are you really still not able to make anything out of Holtzman's very 'fundamental' rule?

... your words basically indicate that you still don't understand the essential element of Western hand reading today:

'Western hand reading' = the art of combining various hand characterstics.


PS. Have you ever seen any 'combination' described in a book about 'classic Indian palmistry'? Well, I guess this is one of the reasons why many Indian palmists many years ago have started adopting the Western approach (and rejected the 'fatalistic' approach - which has traditionally focussed on single hand characteristics)

I think Cheiro had already understood that the 'traditional tunnel-vison' is no longer realistic at all, if it ever was, for he started his 'CHEIRO'S LANGUAGE OF THE HAND' with the words:

"Palmistry should really mean the study of the hand in it's entirety..."

Stalin... I hope you are able to understand what Cheiro meant with these words (which describe basically exactly the same principle described by Hotlzman's no.1. rule). But don't get me wrong, I am not a 'fan' of Cheiro's work - but for other reasons.