1

DECONSTRUCTION OF A POEM I: A KLitT PERSPECTIVE (Theory)

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, The Proverbial Linguistics Group, Hyderabad

Abstract
Derrida‟s concept of differance underpins his project of deconstruction and has implications for
the analysis of a poem. Differance has two meanings: difference and deferment. In this view,
according to the first meaning, a poem has to be decentred and aporiai have to searched out and
from that position the meaning of the poem which is in a state of contention and flux has to be
worked out since Derrida thinks that “texts are really about what they appear not to be about.
According to the second meaning, meaning is never complete, never fully realized but always
just beyond us, postponed or deferred. Words are defined by other words, which are in turn
defined by other words, so that we can never come to a point of fully realized non-regressive
meaning... Again, the literary text may exploit this self-consciously so that ambiguity or more
complex levels of meaning feature explicitly in the text...that complete meaning always escapes.

According to the Ka:rmik Literary Theory, we can never escape from ka:rmik centrism (a centre
of Universal Science of Creation) and it is not necessary that the author should defer the
meaning indefinitely, as it happens in the scriptural texts of the Upanishads, or in the spiritual
poetry of saints in Sanatana Dharma, where every attempt is made to fix the meaning both intra-
textually and inter-textually. Therefore, deconstruction is one-sided and atomic in its project;
again, trying to look for meanings, which are not intended, distorts the purpose of the poem and
defeats its goal. Consequently, what we need is a (w)holistic theory that accommodates all
shades of meaning in an interconnected-interrelated-interdependent network to generate-specify-
direct-materialize an experiential meaning which emerges out of this networking.

In this paper, an attempt has been made to work out such a (w)holistic plan to derive the
meaning in a poem and overcome the side effects of deconstruction which can be really
dangerous in the real world. It is done by adopting Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:dah‟s
technique of a:dhya:sam (superimposition) and apava:dam (ablation or negation)

1. Introduction
According to Habib (2007: 663), “Derrida‟s influence in America and Europe was unparalleled
in the latter twentieth century. His American disciples included the Yale critics Paul de Man, J.
Hillis Miller, and Geoffrey Hartman, as well as Barbara Johnson and, arguably Harold Bloom.
These critics applied and richly extended Derridean techniques such as searching for impasses or
aporiai in various texts, displaying the hidden presuppositions and contradictions in literary and
philosophical works, and demonstrating how their central claims and oppositions undermined
themselves”. However, in spite of its profound influence in a wide range of disciplines,
deconstruction has been sharply criticized for exhibiting a merely destructive or “negative”
capability, whereby it criticizes various systems and institutions without offering any
alternatives. Hence, “its critique is abstract leaving everything as it was” (ibid., 664). His notions
of difference and differance are also criticized as abstract. His critique and alleged destabilization

1|Page
 2

of subjectivity imposes a liberal atomistic view of the self indiscriminately on every philosophy.
Finally, he has been accused of lack of originality.
In view of the above observations, especially, differance, it would be worthwhile to look at
deconstruction as a means of literary analysis, find out its merits and demerits for the analysis of
poetry, which is the topic of this paper, and suggest an alternative to it from the Ka:rmik Literary
Theoretical perspective to overcome the objections raised against it.

II. Literature Review

Derrida considers his deconstruction not as a method but as an “unenclosed, unenclosable, not
wholly formalizable ensemble of rules for reading, interpretation and writing” (Wikipedia article
on “Deconstruction”). According to Ellis (1989: 69), “Deconstruction performs an operation that
is variously described as undermining, subverting, exposing, undoing, transgressing or
demystifying; and it performs that operation on something that is variously thought of as
traditional ideas, traditional limits, traditional logic, authoritative readings, privileged readings,
illusions of objectivity, mastery or consensus, the referential meaning of a text, or simply what
the text asserts or says”. This kind of an operation is one of the important features of traditional
criticism which warns the researcher to be “wary of received opinion, not to accept traditional
views unquestioningly, not to swallow the obvious without looking at subtleties that it may
conceal, not to let authority in any field intimidate us and inhibit our own thinking things through
for ourselves” (ibid.); it is “the standard advice to the researcher in any field… But it is advice,
not theory, and commonplace, not original” (ibid., 70). Instead of diagnosing the particular
methodological error in traditional criticism, and pointing out an alternative, opposing “what is
currently traditional and obvious but not what is wrong with that or what the characteristic,
methodological error of the traditional, obvious reading is other than its being obvious and
traditional” (ibid., 70) does not serve any useful purpose but on the contrary it can be
counterproductive and dangerous. For example, take the case of Sanatana Dharma. In the
absence of direct communication with the Author of the Ve:da:s, Who is considered to be
Brahman (God) by the followers of the religion, the text becomes the focus of interpretation.
The real purport of the Ve:da:s as to the nature of Brahma (God) as “E:kam (One) E:va (only) a
(without) dvithi:yam (a Second)” and the relationship between the Ji:va and Brahma by “Tat
(That) thvam (thou) asi (art)” (Sri Bharathi Thirtha Swamy May 2012) is the traditional meaning
derived by the traditional interpretation of fixing the meaning of the Ve:da:s by the six principles
of 1.Upakramo:pasamharam (Beginning and End); 2. Abhya:sam (Repetition of the Same Idea);
3. Apu:rvata (That which is not known early); 4. Phalam (Result obtained from the
Phenomenon); 5. Arthava:dam (the Same Meaning Argument); and 6. Upapatti (Logic). Now, if
a deconstructionist enters the scene of interpretation and asks the reader to turn over the
traditional meaning and arrive at a meaning by considering another secondary or marginal
feature (fractures or aporiai in Derridean terms) of Image Worship, without systematically
integrating it into the main purport, it will simply be disastrous. The critic‟s own disposition
enters into play and creates interpretations which may or may not be acceptable to others at large
owing to the well-known errors in human interpretation such as bhrama (delusion or
misunderstanding owing to one‟s own erroneous perception), pramadam (accidental mistakes in

2|Page
 3

interpretation even though the author‟s intent is well understood), and vipralipsa (even though
the author‟s intent is understood, deliberate distortion of the intent owing to evil intentions of the
critic). Such interpretations will trigger a butterfly effect and the opponents will mock them,
censure them, and even destroy their images in the temples and internet (see MN Kaul: Kashmir
Wail of a Valley Atrocity and Terror Part II: Chapter 10 for desecration and vandalism of 70
temples) to propagate their own interests.
In another defensible way of deconstruction, it is considered to be an interpretation of the
“warring forces of signification” which is already there as one of the standard procedures of the
New Critics which attempts at “a more inclusive and complex interpretation embracing all
levels” (ibid., 72).
Let us put the review in a proper perspective by capturing the points.
1. Atomic Interpretation of Texts: Texts are interpreted from the other point of view instead of
the traditionally accepted point of view, which may or may not be justified. As such both the
views are one-sided. What we need is a (w)holistic interpretation that takes into account: 1.
Authorial Intentionality; 2. Textual Referentiality and Indexicality; 3. Experiential Possibility;
and 4. Reader Receptivity.
2. Absence of a Method: In the absence of a clearly defined methodology, interpretation of a
text becomes complicated owing to the three defects of bhrama, pramadam, and vipralipsa of
individual interpretation. What is more, deconstruction is also not an analysis since meaning is
derived by relatability a la Saussure‟s structural organization. Therefore, a free play will become
a sign of dangerous mediocrity in the absence of humanism, and empirical facticity.
3. Lack of an Alternative Theoretical Paradigm: Mere denunciation without an alternate
solution is fruitless and can be counterproductive.
4. Lack of Universality: Deconstruction is not applicable to all types of texts where multiple
meanings are checked by established means of composition; where deliberate ambiguity and
deferment are not instituted into the text; where authorial intentionality is reasonably and
authoritatively established.
5. Lack of Originality: Many critics have pointed out that the principles enunciated in
deconstruction are not new and have been there since the sophists of the fifth century.
In view of the points raised above, we need a (w)holistic theory that overcomes the problems
created by deconstruction and provides a more faithful, and experientially plausible,
descriptively and explanatorily adequate interpretation of a literary text.
In the next section, Ka:rmik Literary Theory will be proposed as an alternative and Ka:rmik
Critical Literary Analysis is offered as a practical means for conducting literary interpretation.
III. Deconstruction of a Poem: A Ka:rmik Literary Theoretical Perspective
Since Derrida specifically considers the project of deconstruction, not a method, not a critique,
not an analysis, not post-structuralist, we have to get some ideas about how deconstruction
proceeds from the ideas of antilogocentrism; overturning binary oppositions; differance
(difference-deferment); free play; aporiai; sous rature; etc. proposed in the deconstruction
project. These important ideas emerge, sort of, into a method. Let us discuss them briefly to
know how they are used in the deconstruction of a poem.
3|Page
 4

3. 1. Characteristics of Deconstruction in the Analysis of a Literary Text

3. 1. 1. Logocentrism vs Antilogocentrism
According to Habib (2007: 650), the most fundamental project of deconstruction is to display the
operations of logocentrism in any text. According to deconstructionism, logocentrism “is the
illusion that the meaning of a word has its origin in the structure of reality itself and hence makes
the truth about that structure seem directly present to the mind” (1989: 36-37). Derrida proposes
that this logocentric error should be denounced and that denunciation itself should be retained as
a positive element in the newer position to be taken.
Suppose the Logos is removed from this framework; then the relationship between the sign
and the object will be affected and so also the relation between the signifier and the signified in
the sign. Since there is nothing that supposedly exists prior to language, beyond a text, outside
language as a reference, as central or fundamental to meaning and knowledge in western culture,
“there is nothing to hold together the orders of language and reality, which now threaten to fly
apart from each other” (ibid., 651): the word can mean anything - if it is not constrained by the
English social perspective - as it is perceived by the writer or the reader.
As a consequence of decentering logocentrism, concepts such as thought, truth, reality and
human self lose their validity – thought is a linguistic construct which takes place in, and made
possible by language, truth becomes a relation of linguistic terms, reality a construct and human
self a linguistic construct without any pregiven essence. Since “il n‟y pas de hors texte „There is
nothing outside text‟”, history and identity are also affected as not existing outside language or
text. “Hence, a deconstructive analysis tends to prioritize language and linguistic operations in
analyzing texts and contexts” (ibid., 652).
In view of this antilogocentrism, a deconstructive interpretation of a poem should proceed first
from performing the task of decentering logocentrism and making textuality govern all
interpretative operations (i.e., prioritizing language and linguistic operations).
3. 1. 2. Binary Oppositions
As a consequence of decentering logocentrism, the traditional binary oppositions lose their value.
So deconstruction uses “the unraveling and undermining of certain oppositions which have
enjoyed a privileged place in western metaphysics” (ibid., 653) for the construction of meaning
and values as one of the most important strategies to achieve the same goal of decentering
logocentrism. Hence, one of the important duties of a deconstructionist is to hunt for the binary
oppositions and overturn them. Consequently such oppositions as signifier/signified,
sensible/intelligible, writing/speech, passivity/activity, male/female, etc. will be overturned and
the domination or governing of one term over the other in a violent hierarchy will be undone.
The overturning of binary oppositions should not be overlooked because it amounts to forgetting
the conflictual and subordinating structures of opposition. The implication is that all texts are
structured around binary oppositions overtly or covertly in a violent hierarchy. In the absence of
an explicit binary opposition in the text, it must be inferred from the position of the given term.
In that sense, texts are about what they are not.
A deconstructionist, having decentered logocentrism, now turns over binary oppositions and
tries to derive meaning from the inverted, subversive position through different means of
differance, dissemination, free play, aporiai, and sous rature as explained below.
4|Page
 5

A major problem with this overturning is the truth conditionality of the oppositions.
Overturning is fruitful if the dominating or governing of one term over the other term is not
justified. If it is justified, overturning will be problematic. Second, theoretically, it is possible
that not all texts have a violent hierarchy. For example, in the advaita philosophy, the binary
opposition between the Creator of this universe and His Creation (i.e., Universe) is not in a
violent hierarchy but in a vivartam (an apparent transformation of the Creator as the Creation), as
a li:la (sort of a fun- game). In such cases, the question of overturning becomes annulled. That
means, deconstruction cannot be applied universally. Furthermore, deconstruction succeeds only
when there is ambiguity, undecidability, and eternal play of differences.
3. 1. 3. Derivation of Meaning
Meaning is constructed in deconstruction through a number of strategies and terms such as
differance, dissemination, free play, aporiai, and sous rature which are briefly explained below.
1. Differance: Difference and Deferment
Another important feature of deconstruction is differance which is supported by decentering
logocentrism. Bhuvaneswar‟s (2012 a) summary of differance captures this concept succinctly as
follows:
According to Webster (1996: 105), “Derrida‟s term for conceptualizing how meaning works
and which underpins the project of deconstruction is differance; ... „Differance‟ translates first of
all as „difference‟ in a sense derived from Saussure‟s view of language as a system of
differences, that is we are able to distinguish between words and their associated meanings
through a system of sound differences and by understanding one thing as not another thing. So
that „dog‟ is not „bog‟ or „hog‟ or even „umbrella‟ or „parasol‟. For Saussure, the relationship
between signifier and signified was a stable one, the system of phonetic and semantic differences
worked in a regulated and unproblematic way”. However, Derrida considers this relationship as
highly problematic: “meaning is always in a state of contention and flux. When we think of „dog‟
we are also thinking of what it is not; not a cat, hog, or whatever” (ibid.).In this sense, Derrida
thinks that “texts are really about what they appear not to be about, and he searches for weak
points, or fractures where the otherness, aporiai, that texts conceal become apparent” (ibid.,
106). The other meaning of differance is „deferment‟, which arises from the French differer
meaning to defer as well as differ. “The idea that meaning is never complete, never fully realized
but always just beyond us, postponed or deferred, is indicated here. Words are defined by other
words, which are in turn defined by other words, so that we can never come to a point of fully
realized non-regressive meaning... Again, the literary text may exploit this self-consciously so
that ambiguity or more complex levels of meaning feature explicitly in the text...that complete
meaning always escapes” (ibid. 106-8).
The idea of turning transcendental signifieds into mere constructs of language is empirically
not valid in this classical mechanical world as it contradicts Newtonian mechanics. In this
wakeful state experiential world of empirical phenomenal reality, all phenomenal objects are
real as you and I and the other. It is only in the quantum mechanical world, they become illusory
since matter vanishes and reality becomes virtual, similar to ma:ya as advocated by Sri: A:di
Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:da (see Bhuvaneswar 2012 a for more discussion on the nature of
reality) but that is a different thing altogether. Derrida has mixed up the planes and messed up

5|Page
 6

the very basic idea behind language creation as a dispositional, sociocognitive experiential
linguistic system as explained in Bhuaneswar (2012 b, c).
2. Dissemination
In dissemination, textual meaning is divided and tends to move out in all directions because
words have many meanings and they proliferate indefinitely. Consequently, it resists closure and
leads to an endless play of meanings. In the words of Leitch , “[t]he “work,” now called text,
explodes beyond stable meaning and truth toward the radical and ceaseless play of infinite
meanings spread across textual surfaces – dissemination.” (1983: 105).
In discussing dissemination Derrida plays on the double meanings of seed/term/germ and
semantics, all of which constitute the effect of dissemination. (Derrida 1972: 334) Dissemination
is therefore not a negative process which must be contained; but rather it is the necessary
precondition for writing to exist at all: “The heterogeneity of different writings is writing itself,
the graft. It is numerous from the first or it is not.” (Derrida, 1972: 390). It is called
intertextuality by Julia Kristeva and Roland Barthes as they understand it.
Intertextuality need not lead to an explosion of meanings; on the other hand, it may limit
meaning and gives it stability by reiteration, confirmation, and further confirmation as it happens
in the case of upanishadic literature. The conceptualization of Brahman as e:kam e:va:dviti:yam
„One only without a Second‟ or the repetition of the sentence Tatvam asi nine times in
Chando:gyo:panishad to give the same meaning are typical, classic examples to prove this point.
3. Free Play
According to Derrida, meaning can be interpreted in terms of a centre by limiting and
focussing meaning by it; alternatively, it can be arrived at by admitting transgression of the
centre which allows free play with a lawless signifier. “Derrida promotes a joyous and free
interpretation of the signifier, which neither demands nor provides truth or center, escape or
transcendence. Where logocentric hermeneutics centers, deconstruction decenters. Instead of
restricted play and filled spaces, deconstruction desires radical free play and exorbitantly
overfilled spaces, aiming to subvert regulated and filtered interpretation. While traditional
interpretation tries to check or hide the inescapable errors at the edge. Derridean reading attempts
to draw out and cash in on this potential proliferation (dissemination). It wants to keep the
interpretive crisis at the edge continuously on the edge.” (Leitch 1983).
As already pointed out, in religious discourse, free play is simply disastrous. Authorial
intentionality must and should be discovered through textual referentiality and indexicality as
well as experiential possibility. Accepting the viewpoint or rejecting is another issue! Even in
science with shifting views, we cannot allow free play in dealing with high voltage current by
subversion of the binary opposition between conductivity and non-conductivity. Just imagine
water as a non-conducting medium by looking for a well-insulated heater as an aporia and put
your finger in it when it is not insulated against short circuit! In fact, many calamities in our life
are caused by deconstruction of the Derridean sort, which are called costly/fatal mistakes in folk
language!
4. Aporiai
The term often used by deconstructors to name the impasse of interpretation, the end point of
critical reading and writing, is aporia. To the Greeks this meant "no way out." Unable to get

6|Page
 7

beyond signs, locked in language (ecriture), the interpreter confronts the irreducible free play of
differance and figure. Since there is neither an undifferentiated nor a literal bottom or ground, the
activity of interpretation is endless. There is no way out and interpretation is endless.
The consideration of aporiai as central to the construction of meaning undermines authorial
intentionality- if it is reasonably and authoritatively available - since he should have made the
aporiai the central position instead of the marginal had he intended them to be so.
5. Sous Rature
According to Wikipedia, Sous rature is a strategic philosophical device originally developed by
Martin Heidegger. Usually translated as 'under erasure', it involves the crossing out of a word
within a text, but allowing it to remain legible and in place. Used extensively by Jacques Derrida,
it signifies that a word is "inadequate yet necessary";[1] that a particular signifier is not wholly
suitable for the concept it represents, but must be used as the constraints of our language offer
nothing better. Derrida uses this device to identify terms which are self-contradictory making
their meaning undecidable. To extend this notion, deconstruction and the practice of sous rature
also seek to demonstrate that meaning is derived from difference, not by reference to a pre-
existing notion or freestanding idea.
Sous rature is one kind of intellectual imperfection. It is a problem of lack of clarity in vision
and inadequacy in expression. Language is designed to express what is meant in principle
(according to Searle‟s Speech Act theory) and what is meant is meant dispositionally according
to Bhuvaneswar (2011). So if you needed sous rature, your knowledge base and va:sana
(internalized habit) base are dominated by a ra:jasik-ta:masik disposition and you must overcome
them by cultivating intense sattva. For example, a student is asked to explain a scientific
phenomenon, such as sunrise and sunset of the sun and he says that it is like its movement from
east to west but it is not; it is neither this nor that! The scientist tells him that it is the movement
of the earth with reference to sun that positions the sun in the opposite direction and clarifies.
This reminds one of a very old proverb: Unable to dance, one said the land is uneven! Negative
capability is also one kind of intellectual autism!
To sum up, one way of doing deconstruction is to first decenter logocentrism, overturn binary
oppositions, unravel aporiai, and establish meaning by relating the concepts as linguistic
constructs through difference, deferment and trace, dissemination, and free play to create neither
this nor that type of meanings by sous rature.
In view of the above analysis of deconstruction and its disadvantages, what we need is a
theory grounded in scientific, empirical reality - called ka:rmik centrism in KLitT ((Ka:rmik
Literary Theory) (see Bhuvaneswar 2012 a)) - which does not violate the basic design of
language as an experiential system of triple activity grounded in that reality and which takes into
consideration issues like binary oppositions, intertextuality, aporiai, multiple meanings (free
play) from a realistic and holistic point of view as in the Ka:rmik Critical Literary Analysis
(KCLA) in KLitT which is outlined in the next section.
3. 2. Ka:rmik Critical Literary Analysis (KCLA) of a Poem: A Framework
Ka:rmik Critical Literary Analysis of Poetry is a procedure developed from Ka:rmik Literary
Theory as a branch of Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory (KLT). Just as KLT is based on a theory-
procedure-technique plan, so also are KLitT and KCLA. Basically, KLitT is derived by adding

7|Page
 8

literary in between Ka:rmik and Reality (i.e., qualifying reality) giving rise to Ka:rmik
Literary Reality (KLR). To explain further, when reality is specifically related to literature, it
becomes literary actional reality; when this literary actional reality is dispositionally
constructed, it becomes dispositional literary (actional) reality; and finally, when dispositional
literary reality is constructed for the literary karmaphalabho:gam (bho:gam „experience‟ of
karmaphalam) of the literary karmaphalam (results of action) of the literary karma (action) of
the ka:rmik literary actor, it becomes ka:rmik literary reality.
3. 2. 1. Aims and Objectives of KCLA
The aim of KCLA is to identify, and propose a procedure for indexing the emergent experiential
pleasure of reading a literary (poetic) text and suggest techniques to implement the KCLA
procedure.
The objectives of KCLA are to chalk out a procedure to unfold how this KLR is constructed
from above-around-below the levels of the poem and how this procedure is implemented through
specific techniques of a:dhya:sam (superimposition) and apava:dam (ablation) for its
experience. It is briefly outlined below.
3. 2. 1. Theory (of KCLA of a Poem)
The theory of KCLA is the theory of KLitT which is derived from Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory by
qualifying it by literary as and when it is needed and wherever it is necessary and appropriate. A
very detailed discussion of this theory is done under Universal Science of Creation in
Bhuvaneswar (2012 a: 9 -18). Accordingly, we get the following which are some of the
important foundational principles for poetic action by substituting literary with poetic:
0. Principle of Creation and Use of Language which states that language is not only used
dispositionally by human beings for living in a context but it is also created by human beings by
living in the context. To explain more, language (poetry as language in this case) is used as a
resource for the construction of (poetic) actional reality at the level below, (poetic) dispositional
reality at the level around, and (poetic) ka:rmik reality at the level above. [Living means existing
for experiencing pleasure by fulfilling one‟s desires impelled by one‟s disposition by exerting
effort and performing triple action (mental-vocal-physical) leading to results and experience. In
the process, one may experience pleasure if his desires are fulfilled or pain, if they are not, or
witnessing if he is not affected by the results.]
1. Principle of Literary Action which states that all poetic action is created by poetic desires
impelled by svabha:vam (disposition) leading to effort which in turn produces poetic (ka:vya)
action (karma) which in turn produces results (of poetic action)) (ka:vya karmaphalam) for their
ultimate experience (ka:vya karmaphalabho:gam).
(1) Disposition Poetic Desire Poetic Effort Poetic Action
Poetic Action Results Poetic Action Result Experience
2. Principle of Choice of Literary Action which states that all poetic action is chosen by
dispositional bias generated by svabha:vam (disposition) leading to response bias which in turn
creates choice of poetic (ka:vya) action (karma) which in turn produces variation in poetic
action leading to poetic action and [results (of poetic action)) (ka:vya karmaphalam) for their
ultimate experience (ka:vya karmaphalabho:gam)].

8|Page
 9

(2) Disposition Dispositional Bias Response Bias Choice of Poetic Action

Variation in Poetic Action Results Experience
3. The Principle of Exploration of Variables states that language is created by exploiting the
principle of exploration of variables which consists of four sub-principles:
3. 1. The Principle of Exploration of Contextual Variables (ECV) is a principle by which the
variables available in a context are explored, discovered, chosen, and employed to create the
system of language.
3. 2. The Principle of Productive Extension of (Contextual) Variables (PEV) is a principle by
which the variables already explored, discovered, chosen, and employed to create the system of
language are further adapted to create modifications.
3. 3. The Principle of Creation of New Variables (CNV) is a principle by which new variables
are created to enrich the system of language.
4. The Law of Conceptualization of Poetic Action states that it is produced in a tristratal structure
of Conceptualization – Pattern and Structure – Material Form like a seed containing the pattern
and structure of the tree in the form of the sprout and the tree containing the pattern and structure
of the tree and its concept. To elaborate more, the material form of the poetic action (i.e., the
printed text or recited text of the poem) embodies the pattern and structure of the poem; and the
pattern and structure embodies the concept of the poem, like the material form of a building in its
manifest state embodies the pattern and structure (blue print) of the building in its semi-manifest
state and this in turn embodies the concept of the building in the mind of the architect in the
unmanifest state. The transformation from the concept-to-pattern and structure-to-material form
is a:nushangik, that is, the cause is reflected into the effect like the clay in the pot.
(3) Concept Pattern and Structure [+ Cause]
Material Form [+Pattern and Structure [+ Cause]
[ „a:nushangikally transforms into‟]
5. The Principle of Universal Science of Creation states that all lingual (poetic) action is
governed by the laws of universal sciences of action, living, and lingual action.
6. The Principle of Gradual Evolution and Five Realities states that poetic action evolves
gradually by algorithmic, heuristic, and automatic processes from one state to another state in a
cause-means-effect method. In this process, ka:rmik reality evolves into dispositional, cognitive,
socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional, and poetic actional realities.
3. 2. 2. The Procedure (of Poetic Action)
The procedure of creation, interpretation, and experience of any poetic action is through
ka:rmik processing which in its simplest definition is the processing of poetic action for its
experientiality and it consists of many sub-processes and techniques (see Bhuvaneswar 2011 for
such an extensive list). The most important process is the construction of ka:rmik reality from
dispositional reality from actional reality as follows in a linear, a:nushangik process:
(4) (Poetic) Ka:rmik Reality (Poetic) Dispositional Reality (Poetic) Actional Reality.
In its more detailed form, it consists of Cognitive Reality, Socioculturalspiritual Reality, and
Contextual Actional Reality and equation (4) becomes
(4 a) (Poetic) [Ka:rmik Reality Dispositional Reality Cognitive Reality
Socioculturalspiritual Reality Contextual Actional Reality Actional Reality].

9|Page
 10

Ka:rmik Processing performs different functions from different perspectives:

1. Authorial Perspective: From the point of view of the Poet, ka:rmik processing governs the two
phases of the creation (first cycle of composing poetry) and transmission (second cycle of
reading poetry) of a poem: 1. Creation: Motivation, Composition, and Production; and 2.
Transmission: Presentation, Propagation, and Protest and Innovation. The Creation Phase is
above the level of the poem and involves the choice of theme/themes, their organization, and
development through content where the WHY of the poem governs the HOW and WHAT in an
I-I-I network of Cause-Means-Effect, according to the style derived from dispositionality of the
poet (see Bhuvaneswar 2012 b).
(4 b) Inspiration [Choice Organization] Development of a Theme Content.
2. Critical Perspective: From the perspective of the critic, ka:rmik processing governs the four
major nodes of poetic interpretive activity: 1. Authorial Intentionality (AI); 2. Textual
Referentiality, Indexicality and Componentiality (TRIC); 3. Experiential Possibility (E-P); and 4.
Reader Receptivity (R-R). This is around-the (middle) level of the poem.
3. Reader‟s Receptivity: From the perspective of the reader, ka:rmik processing governs the
poetic receptivity of the five major nodes of the poem as the text:1. Form; 2. Content; 3.
Function; 4. Style; 5. Context from its Textual Perspective, leading to its ultimate 6. Experience
from the five appeals of the text which are: form, content, function, style, and context combined
as a single unified sixth appeal which is Textual Appeal from its Experiential Perspective. This is
below the level of the poem.
Whatever be the type of perspective, there are two more perspectives which are implicitly
linked to them. They are: 4. the textual perspective; and 5. the experiential perspective
mentioned above in Reader‟s Receptivity. A-I, TRIC, and E-P form one group under Text-
Creation (T-C), and the C-P, and R-R form another group of Text-Reception (T-R). They are
closely related to Poetic Creative Capability (PCC). The text as the product (effect) of creativity
is the link between the poet and the reader. It is the field on which the players (of thematic
positions) play the game of poetics: the poet runs the puppet show of thematic interplay like a
game and the reader witnesses it and experiences it like a spectator; or like a film show seen and
enjoyed by its watchers.

A-I TRIC E-P Apava:dam Va:dam Ka:rmeme

● KCLA ● •

C-P R-R Adhya:sam Cogneme

Aparo:ksha ka:vya rasa::nubhu:ti
„Non-indirect Poetic Aesthetic Experience‟
Network 1: I-I-I Network of KCLA Procedure Network 2:Network of KCLA Techniques
All these three perspectives are I-I-I in the creation-interpretation-experience of the poem. When
the author composes a poem, he has to take into consideration both the critic and the reader into
consideration; otherwise, his poem fails to accomplish its objectives; in a similar way, if the
critic does not take into consideration the author and the reader, his criticism will be imperfect;

10 | P a g e
 11

and finally, if the reader does not care for the critic and the author, his understanding of the poem
will be incomplete and his experience misguided. Therefore, KCLA takes all these factors into
consideration and attempts to provide a (w)holistic critical literary analysis by I-I-Iing them in a
radial network in the circumference of ka:rmik processing.
3. 2. 3. Techniques (of Poetic Action)
A procedure is implemented by techniques. There are many techniques that are identified in
KLitT but a:dhya:sam (superimposition) is the most important technique. In addition, we also
take into consideration two more techniques apava:dam (negation or ablation), and va:dam
(affirmation) that are made use of in KCLA. These techniques are briefly discussed below.
1. Adhya:sam (Superimposition): KCLA by Superimposition
According to Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:da:h, a:dhya:sa is "the apparent presentation,
to consciousness, by way of memory of something previously observed in some other thing".
(Brahma Su:tra: A:dhya:sa Bha:shyam). The classic example of a:dhya:sa is the optical illusion
called mirage in which water appears on a surface where there is no water (as seen in deserts).
Another example is the appearance of a snake on a rope in semi-darkness. In these phenomena,
an object which is not really there appears on another object owing to erroneous perception.
The technique of a:dhya:sam, according to KLT and KLitT, is made use of in the creation of
language and further in the composition of a poem unconsciously. However, in this kind of
bha:sha:dhya:sam „lingual superimposition‟ – as I discover it– superimposition is dispositional,
wilful, knowledgeable, multidirectional, and highly systematic. At the level of form, pattern and
structure is superimposed on sound (adhishta:nam „substratum‟) at the various levels of
phoneme, syllable, word, phrase, clause, and sentence (as a:dha:ram „superimposed‟); in a
similar way, at the level of meaning also, different types of meaning are superimposed on pure
awareness (substratum) as differentiated awareness (superimposed meaning) (see Bhuvaneswar
2011 for a detailed discussion on this topic). Extending the same line of thinking, a poem is the
superimposed on the substratum of sound, or the paper at the different levels of form-content-
function-style-context as systemically shown in the networks 3a and 3b below.
When a poet is impelled by his poetic disposition and a desire erupts to write a poem and is
motivated to write a poem, he does so according to his Poetic Creative Capability (PCC) dealing
with his imagination and Poetic Compositional Capability (PCoC) dealing with his
compositional skills of translating his ideas into the poem. Approximately, the process goes like
this.
 He chooses an idea or concept on which he wants to write about as a topic, as a major
theme.
 He conceives supporting ideas to support the major theme or minor themes as content,
functions, style, form, and context, and the minute details pertaining to them either
algorithmically (one after another from A..B..C..Z), heuristically (by trial and error as A
..F...N...Z), or automatically (as the exact details of the poem in a flash). This idea or
concept or theme on which he wants to write becomes, as it were, the seed of the poem.
In it lies the pattern and structure of the poem and the poem gradually evolves into the
sprout (pattern and structure, or semi-manifest poem like the blueprint of a building).
This is cognized as a Poetic Cogneme as shown in a tricircled graph similar to the one

11 | P a g e
 12

shown in network 2 here (see p.11) but elaborately explained in KLT Graphs 1 and 2 of
Bhuvaneswar 2012 (p.19).
 Finally, this poetic cogneme is materialized into the tree (the manifest material form, like
the final material form of the building) of the poem as seen on the paper or heard in
recitation. This gradual evolution is described in terms of the first three stages of
motivation-composition-production of the poem in KCLA.
The task of the critic is to track this gradual evolution of the poem in a systematic way
and provide a principled account of WHY (cause) the poem is written and HOW
(manner, place, and time) it embodies the cause to produce the poem (effect) as the
WHAT. In KCLA, it is done in the following stages.
1. Identification of Poetic Intentionality
The first task of a critic is to hunt for the seed (conceptualization) of the poem he wants to
analyze starting from the biographical, contextual, and textual (intra-textual-to-inter-textual-to-
ultra-textual) sources. He has to collect information about writing the poem by direct means
such as interviews, letters, talks, writings on this or related topics, etc.; indirect means from his
friends, writings on the poem, etc.; and any other references to it from non-literary sources
available. The poetic intentionality should be reasonably established and should be authoritative.
2. Motivation of the Gradual Evolution of a Poem by A:dhya:sam
The gradual evolution of the poem should be fleshed out on the analogy of a seed-sprout-tree or
concept-blue print-structure of a building evolution in the spatiotemporalmaterial-
socioculturalspiritual-inclinationalinformationalhabitual matrix of the poet‟s environment and
disposition. It is done by a:dhya:sam of the pattern and structure on to the cause and further the
material form on to the pattern and structure of the poem. To explain further, the cause is
embodied by pattern and structure which is further embodied by the material form (of the poem).
This model is directly inspired by Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:dah‟s unparalleled
interpretation of creation which is now getting established in quantum physics.
2.1. Seed Formation: Once the poetic intentionality is reasonably and authoritatively established,
it becomes the seed of the poem.

Title Phonetics
Line Sentence Phonology
Body Stanza Lexis
Canto Syntax

Form Language
Move
Speech Act
Stress Exchange
Prosody Rhythm Discourse Transaction
Rhyme Structure Event
Meter Situation
Network 3 b: Basic Components of a Poem- Form

2. 2. Sprout Formation: The poetic gradual evolution from the seed-to-sprout (pattern and
structure) stage should be worked out in a top-down process by making use of the data that is
12 | P a g e
 13

available within the poem, across the interrelated-interconnected-interdependent texts by the

same author and others, and outside from other non-literary sources as well. It is done by
centring the poetic intentionality and the other data available should be drawn like a tree pattern
Material Intellectual
Body Semantics Mental Emotional
Language Delusional
Prosody Propositional Age
(See Network 3b for Content Social Gender Elite
more details) Class
Social Cultural Mass
Religious
Spiritual
Form Mixed
Subject
Content Discipline
Topic
Noumenal
Category
Phenomenal
Rhetoric Theme Movement
Structure
Logic
Function Motif Ideology
Components Symbol Authorial Point of View
of a Poem Function Leitwortstil
Didactic
Purpose Artistic
Purposeless
Imagery
Symbolism
Voice
Emotion
Tone General
Appeal
Style Figures of Speech Particular
Function
Body
Form Language
Prosody
Semantics
Content Dispositional
Rhetoric Cognitive
Aesthetic Appeal Socioculturalspiritual
Cotextual Actional
Actional
Spatio-Temporal-Material (STM)
Context Socio-Cultural-Spiritual (SCS)
Inclinational-Informational-Habitual (IIH)
Network 3 a: Basic Components of a Poem (Adapted from Bhuvaneswar 2009)

13 | P a g e
 14

and structure. Systemic networks can be made use of to establish these patterns and structures in
terms of major themes (like the trunk), minor themes (like the main branches), motifs (like the
sub-branches), symbols (like the flowers) and leitwortstil (like the fruits) of the tree of the poem.
Once such a pattern is cognized, it becomes the poetic cogneme of the poem. This poetic
cogneme-cognition can be automatic, heuristic, or even algorithmic. Once, it is generated, it
makes clear the way in which the poem evolved gradually from one stage to another stage and
the causes for its growth can be easily identified. Finally, the poem can be motivated
scientifically and linguistically from its cause-to-effect state via the means of poetics in terms of
a clearly delineated poetic cogneme from the operation of a:dhya:sam.
2. 3. Tree Formation: The sprout is then fleshed out (worded out) by turning the thematic content
into propositional content (material, mental, social, spiritual, and mixed) into grammatical
content (body, language, and prosody) into the phono-lexical-syntactic form of the tree as shown
in the sub-network 3b above and captured in equation (3).
2. 4. Beautification of the Tree of the Poem: As the sprout grows into the tree, it is qualified in
its substantiation (like a lotus by its colour, shape, and texture) by the appropriately but
dispositionally chosen features of style which are imagery, symbolism, and figures of speech as
well as function and aesthetic appeal in a chosen tone and voice throughout the content.
2. 5. Contextualization of the Tree of the Poem: As the tree of the poem gradually evolves thus
into a work of art, it is displayed in its context of creation which is spatiotemporalmaterial (the
place-time-material), socioculturalspiritual, and inclinational-informational-habitual. As it is
produced and presented to the readers, it is next evaluated.
IV. Conclusion
Once such an analysis is made as mentioned above, it becomes easy to clearly assess the poem
and chart out guidelines for its understanding and experience as discussed below.
4. 1. Evaluation of the Poem
Once this poetic cogneme is identified, and its apparent transformation from the seed-to-sprout-
to-tree states are described, it is then transferred into the experiential cognition of the critic as a
Poetic Ka:rmeme by dispositionalization from the first quadrant of KLT Graph 1 (see
Bhuvaneswar 2012: 19). It is then evaluated in a bottom-up process from the text-to-authorial
intentionality for reader receptivity of experiential possibility as well as in around-the-text
process for socioculturalspiritual contextual acceptability. Finally, the poem is (w)holistically,
that is, ka:rmemikally, experienced to gain the aparo:ksharasa:nubhu:ti (non-indirect aesthetic
pleasure derived from reading the poem) and it is conveyed to the reader by its critique.
4. 2. Guidelines for Understanding, Evaluation and Experience of the Poem
This aesthetic pleasure manifests at three levels as shown in network 2. The first circle denotes
the inward unmanifest pleasure – the being is charged with bliss derived from reading the poem;
the second circle denotes its semi-manifest pleasure which is informed by an abstract knowledge
of how the poem is composed; and the third circle denotes manifest pleasure realized by body
language, laughter, praise, etc.
This KCLA of a poem is author-centred and depends on the reasonably, and authoritatively
available evidence of authorial intentionality for its success and the text is uncovered by
superimposition whereas in apava:dam the text is discovered by negation. It can be applied to

14 | P a g e
 15

any type of a text, including multiple-meaning texts, depending on the availability of authorial
intentionality. Simon Armitage‟s poetry is amenable to this kind of KCLA by superimposition. It
solves the problem of aporia, dissemination, and sous rature by focussing and limiting the
meaning around authorial intentionality. It can also be applied to Keats‟ poems with negative
capability. It also takes the evaluation of the poet‟s insights into the nature of the world
(worldview) outside the poem into the socioculturalspiritual context, which is its correct place.
The entire process is captured a:nushangikally in the following equation.
(5) [Concept Pattern and Structure Material Form (Text)] of the Poem.
Suppose the authorial intention is not reasonably and authoritatively available and makes the
construction of the Poetic Cogneme difficult, then the second technique of apava:dam (negation)
and va:dam (affirmation) is followed in KCLA as explained below.
2. Apava:dam and Va:dam: KCLA by Apava:dam
This is a problematic process and fertile ground for criticism. However, KCLA by Apava:dam
and Va:dam is systematic and makes the best out of the worst bargain by striking balance
between free play and controlled play of criticism. First, the text is dismantled into the basic
components of a poem which are form, content, function, style, and context according to the
basic components network 3. Second, they are interconnected-interrelated in terms of networks-
within-networks in an atomic-(w)holistic functional matrix as they are amenable for a centripetal
or centrifugal or simply sprawl processes generating options constrained with or without
untenable binary oppositions, aporia, sous rature, and deferment for construing multiple-
meaning interpretations. Third, troubleshooting should be started to eliminate
socioculturalspirital contextually impossible or implausible multiple-meaning interpretations as
not this, not this - experiential possibilities and intertextuality are used as checks to control
negatively the troubleshooting and problem-identification process. In this process to that extent
free play is controlled and minimized if not eliminated. After apava:dam is carried out, the left
out options which are considered to be reasonable interpretations of the text within ka:rmik
centrism are further subjected to the affirmation process by checking them positively as This is
it... This is it...This is it again in the matrix of socioculturalspiritual acceptability and experiential
possibilty. Finally, a set of poetic cognemes and their ka:rmemes are constructed in an order of
preference and presented to the reader for his receptivity and aparo:ksha rasa:nubhuti.
This KCLA by Apava:dam is text-centred in its approach and is best applied to texts which are
not amenable to KCLA by superimposition. In this technique, effect-to-cause inferential logic is
used to arrive at an approximately definitive understanding of the text.
In addition, subjective dispositional interpretation technique can also be used when authorial
intentionality is not available and TRIC is too vague, but here the text is obtained as it is by
dispositional replacement and it can lead to a wild free play and so is not scientifically
grounded in ka:rmik centrism. This technique is Reader Centred which is like allowing a player
to play a game anyhow as he likes without any constitutive rules to govern a game.
Finally, experience centred interpretation technique can also be used but it also becomes free
play because an untrained reader/critic cannot experience artistic phenomena so easily in the
proper perspective. The poem may fall flat on the ears of an unreceptive reader whose

15 | P a g e
 16

experiential potential is not sensitive, subtle, and well-informed of poetic processes since he
derives it by adaptation to his experiential possibility.
To conclude, KCLA I-I-Is authorial intentionality, textual referentiality, indexicality, and
contentuality, experiential possibility, and reader receptivity into a unified framework centred on
scientifically established ka:rmik centrism and offers a comprehensive poem analysis which
psychologically more valid and descriptively and explanatorily more adequate. As a result, it
overcomes the problems faced by deconstructive analyses of poems.
References
Bharathi Teerthaswamy (2012 May). “Sri Jagadguru BharatiTi:rtha Maha:swamy CharaNula
Upade:samu”. In Sri: Samkara Krupa, T. Harihara Sarma (Ed), Hyderabad
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2011). “Proverbial Linguistics: theory and Practice in the Ka:rmk Linguistic
Paradigm”. Plenary Speech, in Proceedings of The International Symposium on Proverbs, University of
Diderot, Paris
------------- (2012 a). “Logocentrism and Deconstruction: A Ka:rmik Linguistic
Perspective”. In Deconstruction: An Indian Response, Prashanth Mishra (Ed.). Delhi: Bahri Publications
_______ (2012 b). Deconstruction of a Poem 2: A KCLA of A Vision by A:dhya:sam.
In Deconstruction: An Indian Response, Prashanth Mishra (Ed.). Delhi: Bahri Publications
_______ (2012 c). “Proverbial Linguistics: theory and Practice in the Ka:rmk
Linguistic Paradigm”. Abridged Article of the Plenary Speech, in Proceedings of The International
Symposium on Proverbs, University of Diderot. Paris.
Derrida, Jacques (1972). “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourses of the Human Sciences”. Writing
and Difference. London: Routledge
Ellis, John M. (1989). Against Deconstruction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univversity Press
Habib, M. A. R (2007). A History of Literary Criticism: from Plato to the Present. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell
Kaul M N (2012). Kasmir Wail of a Valley Atrocity and Terror Part II: Chapter 10. www.Kashmir
Information Network.com
Leitch, Vincent (1983). Deconstructive Criticism: an Advanced Introduction. New York: Columbia
University Press
Sharma, Pradeep Kumar (2012). “Individual Freedom: Perspectives on Selected Contemporary British
and American Poets”. The Indo-Libyan Linguist. Hyderabad
Webster, Roger (1996). Studying Literary Theory An Introduction Second Edition. Arnold: London

16 | P a g e