With Kahn, architects rant about 'space' and 'materiality' as if you can't subject his work to objective analysis at all, that you have to make the pilgrimage and experience it's wonder for yourself; presumably panting. After all he did as much as he could himself to make it confusing. Of course there's another wing who reckon it's absolutely principled.
I don't believe in either shit at all. There is always cause and effect, even with the modern mystic Kahn.
So, three things to understand Kahn:
1. He likes things crystalline (organic or scientific)
2. He has a predilection for ancient monuments (the more ancient the better)
3. He enjoys a structural rationalism not unlike that displayed by Choisy, the Beaux Arts French academic in the C19th.