Perfectionist Pursuits

.“If you wait for perfect conditions, you will never get anything done.”
― Ecclesiastes 11:4

Perfection is a relative condition. Your ideal self might be a nightmare for another. The ideal number, an ideal form: one’s relative impression of what-should-be is a self-defined determinant.

As with many pitfalls of consciousness, one’s ability to self-justify perfectionism provides the warm balm in the face of cognitive dissonance. Faced with the question, “Am I taking this too far?” or “Have I finally lost control”, one’s list of past successes lights the way to justify behavior. Greet the doubt with explanation: the reason for success, my only saving grace. A spiraled list is possible as one’s quest for something higher assumes a risk for a reward. We exist in a world where great risk takers have been rewarded for their efforts. Read a biography of Steve Jobs and one will note the list of anecdotal moments of perfectionist tantrums. Can we link this need to his success. Be wary readers, correlation is not causation and one wonders just how many great ideas were lost by Jobs’ obsession with a perfect shade of blue.

Ironically, the quest to understand perfectionism involves an on-going struggle for a “perfect” model. Frost’s Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale” appeared in 1990. Its six item breakdown of common ‘perfectionist’ features lasted but a single year as Hewitt and Flett’s model of 1991 expanded the list to forty-five items. Then again a change was needed and in 1996 with the Slaney model titled “Almost-Perfect Scale” a broader sense was founded. In 2000’s, Daniels and Pierce made an attempt. Yes, the quest remains in progress: never perfect, always striving.

Despite the numerous models, a common collection of personality traits appear in the models. In general, these revolve around an obsession with the self. It branches far and wide and swarms to encompass every aspect of one’s life. Whether physical or mental, the quest for perfectionism casts one into an impossible gauntlet of needing more. Never perfect, always striving. “I refuse to be content.”

Ultimately, the solution lies not with perfecting the personal piggy bank of life. To make the fix? You need to break the pig. To be perfect is impossible, so to crack the need is to solve the puzzle. The solution to perfectionism lies within the heart of the perfectionist: accept yourself for who you are and come to terms with the ugly, stinky mess that is existence here and now.

 

Community Contained

The term “community” refers to a group of people sharing common values. Whether it be topics as grandiose as religion or culture or as minor as shopping preferences, the commonalities of experience become the glue for our cohesion. We float between different communities daily. From the office to the home or the stores and roads and sidewalks we exist within a framework of community. And though we often function in these groups without awareness, our behavior and expectations of these communities varies. One expects a certain type of treatment at the office that is far different from that experienced on the highway.

We can learn quite a bit about who we are simply by considering our communities. The part is often reflective of the whole. What drove us to engage with the people we do? Do they speak to some need within us or do we provide something for them. Perhaps all human relationships can be simplified to a need fulfillment basis. Life is short so why bother spending it with people who “don’t get us”? What is a stranger but a person so beyond our perspective that they seem almost alien.

Communities are signs of commonality. We can feel a sense of safety knowing that we’re surrounded by people with common ideas. The greatest threat is something beyond our knowledge. That which we know we can predict and launch an offense. The effects of our communities is so profound that its difficult to distinguish where we differ from those who we engage with. How are we different from the crowd? Ultimately our very presence in the crowd reveals a certain level of common experience. It is only when we’re on the outside of a community that we can begin to consider its features. Can we ever get a sense of who we are? Perhaps the initial step is looking where we are and the people who surround us everyday: in the crowd we find reflections and the clues to who we are.

Minor Major Movements

The most pernicious sort of annoyance is the one that strikes one slowly. The gentle ticking or slow, nearly silent whining of a drill in use. Unlike the major disturbance: the explosion, flash of light, or physical assault, the gradual and gentle approach leaves the soft annoyances prone to strike more deeply.

We can learn much from this reality. Strike at your enemy not with a rapid fire assault; instead, repeat an annoying pop song endlessly. The powerful flash of light may blind one temporarily but upon recovery the threat is not only aware of hazard but prime to respond. The better technique is slow and soft, the ever-present strobe or wave that gains acceptance by virtue of existence. We’ll accept if it’s not too annoying or if its occasional disrupting force leaves us capable of working as we were.

Leave the pattern of behavior uninterrupted and the invasion will certainly succeed. It is only via our reactions that we know to fend of a danger. Each of us is a toad in the water: blissfully unaware as the heat rises up to boil us alive. Don’t dare shock the water; instead, warm it slow and soft and we may just cuddle snugly at our killer and welcome with a grin the very force that seeks to squash.

Unintended Damage: Reactions and Response

Mass violence creates dual layers of destruction. An immediate layer of destruction comes as the moment occurs: a mass shooting causes injuries and death at the scene of the act. This is the most powerful moment of drama, the moment when an actor’s plans are carried out. In a sense, this initial moment is when victims are created: plans become reality.

The initial moment is fast, but its reaction is the secondary layer of destruction and creates more long-term changes that will affect those beyond the initial scene of the crime. In our reaction we aim with the best intentions of prevention: we sense a vulnerability and do what we can to protect ourselves from a similar act. These reactions are crucial to protect ourselves but come with an adjustment to our society and often requires an elimination of personal freedom. If acts of violence depend on areas of vulnerability we must eliminate these vulnerabilities to be safe. Complete safety requires complete control…but is this what we want?

A weak, but accurate image is to imagine society as a cardboard box. As the animal in this sanctuary the vulnerabilities we need to breathe and see only serve us if they keep us safe. A delicate balance must be found. History helps us calibrate our society but emotion makes us prone to rapid change and we may find panic inspiring us to cover more holes and hide ourselves away. Moving to a system of protection may feel better but we risk losing the culture of ideas we need to stay alive. A healthy society can only exist if dangerous ideas and people can exist. Yes, it is a hazard and yes we will be hurt over and over, but our freedom is too important to trade away for notions of better safety. One wonders whether these moves to better safety are even affective: will not dangerous people find ways to hurt others if the inspired? How much can we do to protect ourselves from human enthusiasm.