You are on page 1of 7

An Overview of The Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach I

A. An Overview of the Theory

The creation, production, and application of speech is not a simple and atomic but a
complex and holistic activity that involves an intricate interconnected-interrelated-
interdependent networking of various levels beyond, above, within, below, and
outside language in Nature.

Above Outside

Below Within

Fig. 1. The I-I-I Network of Language Language Connections

Among them, first, there is the spatio-temporal-material actional context in which

human beings are born, exist, and die as individuals.
(1a) Birth - Existence – Death – Continuation Spatio-temporal-material Actional
Context ( Substratum);
second, as they are born, they are biologically constituted with: 1) a body with a brain
and vocal organs to perform physical and vocal action, 2) a mind to cognize, execute,
and experience action, and 3) a disposition (personality) – which is a complex of traits
(guna:s), knowledge, and internalized habits (va:sana:s) becoming operative by 4)
Consciousness according to the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory – to generate, specify, and
direct the cognition, execution, and experience of action.
(1b) Human Being = [Body + Mind + Disposition] + Consciousness;
third, as they exist and die (existence), they live which is basically a matter of
performing action for the fulfilment of their desires – that vary contextually (both
spatio-temporal-materially and socio-cultural-spiritually) according to their disposition
(personality) as they grow up - for the experience of pleasure from the entry point of
their birth to the exit point of their death: all these three factors of their existence
(existentiality), their constitution (personality), and their living (experientiality) are
interconnected-interrelated-interdependent ( ).
(1c) Living = Experience of Action for the Fulfilment of Desires Impelled by
(1d) Existence Disposition Experience;

fourth, as they live as individuals, they do so as members of groups within groups
(societies within societies) and perform group activity through individual and
interpersonal activity and vice versa, again, in an interconnected, interrelated, and
interdependent individual-collective network for the negotiation of their desires by
their dispositional coordination of activity; and
finally, they live in a context, and conduct their living by coordinating their contextual
activity for the fulfilment of their desires and the consequent experience of
(1e) Individual Group Greater Group Individual /Social Experience
As a result, their living becomes (individual) dispositional, socioculturalspiritual,
spatiotemporalmaterial, contextual activity and its experience - which is called
samsa:ram or ka:rmik experience in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory where the adjective
ka:rmik refers to this experience as a principle without any religious connotations - note
the spelling of ka:rmik as opposed to karmic to denote the new meaning (cf. the
spellings of Intention vs Intension; and the changes in meaning of karma in Hinduism
and karma in Sanskrit grammar to justify such a new spelling).

To explain it further, the adjective ka:rmik refers to that experiential principle of cause-
effect reality observed in day-to-day living of the individual (and collective) human
beings as living systems with reference to their variable dispositional contextual
actional perspective where the experience of pain and pleasure (through cause-effect) is
generated, specified, directed and materialized through the primary means of
dispositional impulsions [vis a vis the physical perspective of matter as non-living
systems where there is no experience but only cause-effect as observed in physical laws;
and the religious (approximately spiritual) perspective where there is experience but
through the primary means of piety and sin: religion (as the HOW) is a theory of
spirituality (as the WHAT)].

To be more explicit, this experience is referred to as it is empirically and socio-cognitively

observed and not theologically and scripturally established by specific causality outside the
present birth. Therefore, this experience is neither motivated by recourse to rebirth (as
in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism as well as esoteric Christianity,
Rosicrucianism, and Spiritism and probably in Jesuit theology(?)) nor by destiny (as in
the mainstream Christianity and Islam). It is beyond the scope of the Ka:rmik Linguistic
Theory. All these five factors are BEYOND language and are controlled by Nature (i.e.,
the Immanent Intelligence in Nature) by delegating disposition (personality or
svabha:vam) to control all human activity individually and collectively in an
interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent, contextual network. This constitutes

the KA:RMIK REALITY (again, note the spelling of ka:rmik as opposed to karmic to denote
the new meaning) of human existence which is its CAUSAL REALITY.

The external world out there with objects, states of being, and actions; the internal
world in here within the individual with emotions, feelings, intellection, and ideas, as
knowledge; the possible worlds that can be materialized out of the external and
internal worlds: and the imaginary worlds that can only be visualized and considered
to be not possible at the time of their visualization are ABOVE language and constitute
the semiotic content of language, which is the PHENOMENAL OR MATERIAL ACTIONAL
REALITY. Phenomenal actional reality embodies ka:rmik reality via dispositional reality
as follows.

When actional reality is dispositionallyboth cognized and semiotically represented to

perform a function (for the fulfilment of a desire and its further experience of pleasure)
as meaning, it becomes the DISPOSITIONAL REALITY. As such, it embodies ka:rmik
reality. This is WITHIN language. This is a dispositionallygenerated, specified, and
directed type of knowledge of activity as meaning. It is differentiated (patterned)
semiotic cognition of differentiated (patterned) actional reality as this and that
(indeterminate objectification), as so and so (determinate objectification), and as such
and such (object – qualitativity). In other words, it is the inner dispositional reality that
evolved into dispositionallyproduced external actional reality. This is the pattern of
language which embodies meaning. The patterned structuration of the semiotically
represented meaning in the medium of sound is also within language as its form. This
is the material (phonic) structure of language which embodies the pattern.

When speech is used, it becomes lingual action and when it is further used in a context,
it becomes contextual lingual action; and when chosen, it becomes
dispositionalcontextual action; and furthermore dispositional sociocultural -spiritual
action in its cultural context. This gives rise to its ultimate experience. Its
contextualized experiential structuration as a complex of form-function-cognition-
disposition (personality)-action is BELOW language. This constitutes the LINGUAL
ACTIONAL REALITY which is a part of the overall structuration of the contextual actional
reality generated, specified, and directed for the construction of ka:rmik reality.
This ka:rmik reality is experienced not only in terms of lingual actional reality but also
in terms of a (W)holistic experiential network (an atomic-holistic network within networks
principle) of triple action (i.e., an experiential, dispositional, mental, vocal, and physical
action complex). Just like a bird not only needs a body (consisting of the limbs, wings,
etc. for physical action), not only chirping (vocal action) that sends signals, not only a
mind that processes the activity of flying, etc. (mental action), but also a disposition
(personality) that generates, specifies, directs, and materializes its activities (dispositional

action) to experience its flying existence in the spatiotemporalmaterial plane of the world in
its own socioculturalspiritual context with the other birds (experiential action), so also a
human being does need not only a body, a mind, and a vocal organ but also a
disposition (personality) to coordinate the coordination of action through speech to
experience his living within the spatiotemporalmaterial plane of the world within his
own socioculturalspiritual context with the other human beings as well as the
environment that consists of the rest of creation. His existence is interconnected-
interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) with other phenomena in a huge mind boggling
network of action-reaction sequences. Hence, a theory of language should also I-I-I all
these networks in a unified framework – otherwise, it will be like describing a woman
like an object of flesh for enjoyment, or a source for raising a family, or a rudder to
stabilize man, etc. but she is all these and beyond all of them.

Since lingual actional reality is a semiotic reality of phenomenal actional reality, it is a

metaphorical reality and interestingly it is created by and from actional reality and
reflexively used to generate, specify, and direct actional reality itself as well as its
experience through disposition (personality). Thus, as Sri: A:di Samkara
Bhagavatpu:jyapa:dah puts it, name- oriented creation and form-oriented creation are
the two forms of this jagat (world). Hence, a theory of language must and should be a
(W)holistic theory but not an atomic theory at all: Just as a human being cannot be
described atomically in terms of his form, or function, or conceptualization, so also
language cannot be described in terms of formal, or functional, or cognitive theories; it
can only be described (w)holistically.

Actional Reality created dispositionally becomes dispositional (actional) reality; and

when disposition (personality)s vary across individuals and groups, the dispositional
reality becomes variable dispositional reality. At its empirical level, there is a
difference of opinion regarding the cause of the variation in dispositions (personalities)
- it may be due to genetics or context or both or divine dispensation. However, there is
no dispute about the validity of cause – effect relations and living as dispositional,
socioculturalspiritual, spatiotemporalmaterial, contextual activity and its experience.
Consequently, there is no harm in considering the variation as causally variable
without reference to its specific causality as mentioned previously – the determination
of its specific causality is not within the scope of the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory. Hence,
it is causally variable dispositional, socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional,
experiential reality which is called KA:RMIK REALITY in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory.
This is beyond language and beyond human beings because it involves the networking
of the action-reaction sequences contextually. As human beings live, they do so by
constructing their dispositional reality to actualize their ka:rmik reality and experience
the results of their karma (as their dispositional reality) in the form of pleasure or pain.
And to do so, they need to communicate with one another the knowledge of their
activity, understand and explore action as the desires get complex, and finally interpret
and ultimately experience action (or reaction). To put it differently, the other way
round, in a top-down process, in order to experience the pleasure of fulfilling their
desires (born out of their disposition (personality)), human beings interpret and
understand their desires, and the consequent action performed to fulfil their desires as
this and that, as so and so, and as such and such, and then communicate the desires and
the concomitant action – this process can be automatic in general, or heuristic or
algorithmic in planned activity. This is within human beings but outside language. But
to communicate, understand, and experience action (in terms of objects, states of being,
and activity) as this and that, as so and so, and as such and such, a shared symbolic system is
needed. This is within language because language has the capability to be so. Human
beings, impelled by their svabha:vam (disposition (personality)), wanted to communicate
with one another in order to fulfill their desires impelled by their svabha:vam. As a
result of it they made an effort to perform the function of communicating with one
another and, in that dispositional functional struggle, they (our great grand ancestors)
hit upon the greatest idea of using sounds as symbolic tools by Contextual Exploration
of Variables (CEV) through algorithmic, heuristic, and automatic processes as they
conduct their living.

(2) Dispositional Functional Struggle CEV Sound Symbolism

Gradually, they evolved a symbolic system out of the sounds as speech by a

dispositional choice of: 1. sound as the material medium; 2. the phono-lexico-
grammatical-semantic symbolic organization as a system; and 3. the system as a
resource for its further contextual application, transmission, and retention in cultural
memory. In this case, the former part of evolving a symbolic system of speech is within
human beings controlled by disposition (personality) (svabha:vam) but outside
language and the property of getting phonologically, morphologically, syntactically,
and semantically organized is within language which is discovered by human beings
by inherent, dispositional cognition.

Likewise, as we observe the descriptive and historical linguistic data, we find that there
is a unique process of language-ing by dispositional cognition, patterning, and
structuration in first, cognizing the very symbolic system of language by the power of
analyticity, and creativity; second, by the power of productivity, patterning and structuring
that system according to the choices of the speakers of a language; and finally using it
contextually and maintaining it culturally by dispositional choices. Above and beyond,
there is internal variation within and external variation across languages at all the levels
of phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics which can only take place
because human beings made choices in the formation of the system born out of their
variable disposition (personality).

It is during this dispositional process of language-ing, a system is developed to facilitate

its optimum utilization, probably by trial and error and finally by a critical path analysis;
and sometimes by spurts of dispositional creativity in lingual action as can be seen in the
coinage of new words, sentence patterns by poets, fiction writers, etc. It is hypothesized
from historical evidence of language formation that this development took place by
gradual evolution. First, dispositional choices are made from natural dispositional
reactions to the context (triggering lingual action) and contextual action (triggering
contextual lingual reaction to an action) to coordinate the coordination of action for
fulfilling a desire and its experience. This can be captured by the following equations.

(3) a. Disposition (personality) Desire Effort Action

b. Disposition (personality) [Dispositional Bias Response Bias]
Dispositional Choice Lingual Action
c. Dispositional [Choices Patterns Typification]
d. Dispositional Types of Lingual Action Language Rules
Evolution of the Linguistic System
e. Language Rules Productive Application of Rules by Analogy
Standardization of the Linguistic System
f. Application Transmission Retention of the System
g. Dispositional Variation Bifurcation Independent System

In a similar way, when the dispositional biases vary and new choices are made,
variation in the patterns will emerge and eventually new types are formed. Such
variations will gradually lead to bifurcation points and thus create new rules within the
system. Again, as the variation widens to a point of visible separation, a sub-system
(such as a sociolect or dialect) within the main system develops. When the sub-system
creates mutual unintelligibility, it breaks off from the main system and becomes an
independent biolingual, autopoeitic and dissipation system by itself. Thus, these factors
indicate an indispensible and critical role for dispositionality in the formation,
application, and retention of languages as well as their separation into new languages.

In this theory, it will be argued, at all the formal, functional, and the cognitive levels,
that the formation of these systems is dispositionally generated, specified, and
directed rather than genetically inherited a la Chomsky or societally impelled a la

Halliday or merely conceptualized a la cognitive linguistics. If it is proved to be correct,
then, it offers evidence at all the levels of the formation of the linguistic systems that
language is not only used as a resource for the construction of dispositional reality but it
is also produced as a result of dispositional reality). Consequently, it will also prove the
fundamental assumption of the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory that language is
dispositionally produced by human beings living in a context and dispositionally used
by them for living in a context.