Editing Perfection

I had about 15 different editing topics to choose from and then it dawned on me: what standard are we editing toward, and doesn't this standard continuously evolve anyway?

Please define perfection for me...ok, you can't. I can't. So if we're constantly editing ourselves, products, cars, houses, etc etc...I just get lost in it. Are we aiming for perfection? Obviously corrections are supposed to get us that much closer to perfection, right?

The perfect house keeps evolving, the perfect car keeps evolving, the perfect foods keep evolving, the perfect looks keep evolving. I get that the standard of perfection is set to keep us from getting bored, to keep us interested as consumers, to make us feel like something is wrong with us so that we must get better by using new and improved products. Those people who have edited themselves "to the standard" and broke their backs for it, those people who quite possible remortgaged their houses 3 times for it, are going to have the things they worked so hard for edited in the future anyway. 30 years from now whatever that thing is will be changed, bulldozed down, discontinued or "improved" to the standard of the time.

I guess my point is to just keep things as natural as possible and keep things simple. That's about all you can ask for. Nothing will be considered perfect because perfection is an elusive standard, but there are simple and consistent principles that make this constant editing and evolution unnecessary. Everything is pretty perfect the way it has always been available to us.

For example, food is consistent if you keep it simple. Vegetables, fruits, animals and grains have evolved very little, if at all, over hundreds of years. Maybe instead of fad products, just eat very simply.

Some old school products such as some soaps, perfumes, lotions and makeup have evolved very little over the years. Maybe it has everything to do with the ingredients and nothing to do with improvements. Improvements are obviously a sham: we weren't born needing synthetics, so why would improving a synthetic that we already don't need justify an extra $50 price tag? Don't fall for it. And the synthetics that tend to work are replicas of things that are found naturally anyway.

Houses are going to evolve constantly, so why not just live in a house that you enjoy and not one that will impress your neighbors? Cars will constantly evolve, so why be car poor? All of these things will constantly edit their standards over time, and so will people. Why break your back for that?

There will always be the issue of medicine but the main ingredients in synthetic medications have been used for thousands of years anyway. Many medications cause side effects, which then create more necessary medications to treat those side effects. I'm not arguing that medications aren't necessary for some, but they are a way of editing perfection as well. Countless people use and abuse them because they think whatever they are medicating themselves for will go away and bring them that much closer to the standard of perfection.

My philosophy is that the more complicated something is, the more editing will be necessary. Complication and amount of editing are directly correlated. Just let things flow naturally (and I don't mean aim for the bare minimum) and you will probably find that you'll be happy and have a lot less work cut out for yourself in the end. If you're feeling bad about not reaching the standard of perfection, just remember that a lot of it is made up and about 90% of it is your own projections. Edit that out and you'll be golden.

I'm not saying not to buy or do things that you think are perfect; those small things that will make you very happy for years. Just don't buy things or do things because you think they'll make you look perfect. That's never a good standard because that standard isn't fixed.