Not Perfect

So this post, close upon the last one, is inspired by http://profile.myspace.com/tim_minchin (hmm, I'm sure I used to be able to do a better version of a link; memo to self, remember how I did that...).

I'm sitting listening to Tim Michin at the moment, and it occurs to me that all these (self-indulgent, I know, so thanks for not telling me!) posts are because I have spent the months I've been gazing at my navel aiming for perfection. But perfection isn't really possible, and it's pretty counter-productive to aim for it. I had a long discussion with someone some time ago about whether one should aim for 100% in everything, or whether one should only aim for 95%, on the basis that 100% is unachievable. At the time, I espoused the 100% route, on the basis that if you slip a bit, and you're bound to, you might yet get more than 95%. Whilst I still think there's some merit in that, I do wonder if we strive too much for a set figure. When did I stop just wanting to do the best I could. I'm not awfully sure what percentage that would get me up to, but I wonder if it matters. It's bound not to be perfect, but as long as it is good enough, and was good enough for the purpose, and is the best I could manage, does it matter? Am I just beating myself up trying for the 100% all the time, when I should be content with what I can do, when I can do it.

I'm not sure where all this angst came from (well, I could probably trace some of it, if I were being strictly honest, but that's besides the point, and it wouldn't account for all of it), but I am slowly (rather more slowly than is strictly comfortable) coming to the conclusion that it is strictly counter-productive as well as probably extraordinarily tedious to read.

So on Inflatable You, I'm going to sign out of angst. I daresay I might perhaps slip every now and again, but I am going to have a new year's resolution that for every angsty post there should be at least one up-beat one. I think that might be achievable.  ¶ 6:53 PM