It's a great example how it matters which concepts you choose to be your primary ones. There's this beautiful mess of reality and you pick a few concepts to serve as holding points - and now you're able to examine the mess a bit better, now that it's dangling in front of you as you hold it by those couple of points. But does it become explainable? Not necessarily. Parts of it are still tangled and confusing because your holding points don't help in that particular direction and maybe even make it more confusing and tangled, now upside down.
Specifically I mean the concept of "contact" that Gestalt theory uses to put some goal posts in the human behavior. We all want and strive for contact, - they say, - look at the experiments with babies! But what if contact is means to achieving a goal? Babies need their external servers to protect and feed them - so of course they use contact to achieve those means. I mean, even an amoeba contacts the environment but not because it longs for a contact but because that's the only way of getting nutrients and sustaining life.
Contact is similar to how our feet touch the ground. Are we in constant contact with the ground? Yes, absolutely. Do we seek it? Not really. Do we choose the specific shape and outline of our footprints - the contact boundary in the Gestalt world - ? We don't. It's a result of our structural setup and if we in our analysis confined only to the footprint, we won't really understand what combination of configuration above resulted in this projection - scoliosis? extra weight? pelvic muscles overtightened and internally rotating the hip bone? or maybe misaligned bite?
Instead we find ourselves classifying the shapes of the footprints. Is it a high arch? That's a disturbance during the first phase of the touching the ground - merge, confluence. Etc.