kabbalah: n; 1. the process of nature can be regarded as (lived as/experienced as) essentially linguistic. 2. if all that exists is regarded as externalized speech, that speech can be regarded as internalized existence.

Kafka: n; 1. “neither our youth or our deformity can save us from being prematurely debauched.” 2. the last thing kafka wrote was a challenge, an encouragement— “you too have weapons”. 3. “repentance would be good for me.”

Kierkegaard: n; “an existential relationship to the ideal is never visible”. and so too, as any lover can tell you, an existential relationship to the visible is never ideal.

Kinnel: n; “the past is something mostly unlived.”

kiss: n; kiss rhymes with abyss.

know: v; 1. to know is to admit suffering. 2. knowledge neglecting ordeals withers.

knowledge: n; 1. paradoxically, knowledge widens the domain of mystery. knowledge reveals the existence (and therefore increases the number) of new things/possibilities which will never be known. 2. knowledge is a vine-like following-after, a seeing and light-seeking in which there is always a sense of withering. 3. it is a false assumption that knowledge leads to clarity and that only where there is a sober clarity can one say there is knowledge. i have experienced something different whenever i am able to grasp something, whenever i come to know something. at such times, co-incident with my knowing i feel a panic, a confusion which is very intense as though my grasping has stirred something up, has disturbed something. 4. we can know nothing absolutely, which means that we can know only limitation. our knowing is a relationship to limitation. if language is a limitation of being then our knowledge of being is in part a relationship to language, it is a linguistic co-incidence. 5. outside of the limits of any system of knowledge one must rely on abstraction, ideology, rhetoric. 6. a frame; knowing is the act of frame-making. 7. knowing, as a desire to know, to observe and to question and to be told, answered, informed, is subservient sympathy. 8. knowledge is the identity of experience; it indicates a relationship to what is/has been experienced. what is known represents a lack of uncertainty situates the knower in a position untroubled by anxiety. what is known does not have to be true. by true i mean an experience as it is, first-hand, unmediated by description, reference etc. any description of this experience, any knowing of this truth, may be factually verifiable (true) but it may not be. at the same time, the knowing of this truth, itself an experience, is necessarily true as an experience (so it may not be true in one sense but must always be true in this other sense). 9. a social function. often, you need an invitation to get in. more often than not, an invitation is not forthcoming. 10. if you pursue a path of knowledge you will eventually come to know things you would rather not know, things which can destroy you. the form of such knowledge is often of the type i am in complicity with ... if you haven't come to such knowledge then the path you believe you are on is probably only a convenient delusion. 11. knowledge understood as an end in itself will eventually be the cause of injustice, suffering. knowledge must be held by humane hands; it must be able to be used (or set aside) in a humane way. 12. “the truth of cognition is by no means unambiguously good for existence”.- Karl Jaspers. 13. i can know too much but i can never know enough. 14. if, as Aristotle says, “knowledge is what can be taught to others”, can suffering be taught? is suffering knowledge?

koran: n; simultaneous; coincident with one's transcendent nature.

Krauss: n; “repetition is thus the indicator that the wild sounds of babbling have been made deliberate, intentional; and that what they intend is meaning.”

Kuhn: n; 1. “The most esoteric of poets or the most abstract of theologians is far more concerned than the scientist with lay approbation of his creative work... That difference proves consequential. Just because he is working only for an audience of colleagues, an audience that shares his own values and beliefs, the scientist can take a single set of standards for granted. He need not worry about what some other group or school will think and can therefore dispose of one problem and get on to the next more quickly than those who work for a more heterodox group”. 2. “scientific training is not well designed to produce a man who will easily discover a fresh approach [to crises]”.