Contingency

When Borgmann first brought up the subject of contingency in building, I was slightly confused. Although aware that some form of chance was always present in construction, I did not understand how contingency could relate to style as well as the finished product (Borgmann’s realized information). Accustomed to structures representing one style at a time, I found it difficult to believe that two styles of architecture could coexist in the same edifice. However, Borgmann’s example, the Freiberg Minster, represents exactly what I originally could not fathom – ambiguous reality.

For me, an ambiguous reality is a reality where meaning cannot be contained. In truth, no two people are the same; therefore, their interpretations of the world will always be slightly different. This belief can be translated to the act of construction. To use Borgmann’s example, two different master builders sought to create a structure that represented God and the church using two very different styles of architecture that held some form of meaning for each. Thus, the very act of building affected the structure of these men’s’ lives as well as their individual experiences in different and unique ways.