Gordon Swaby

A new archetype on the concept of Perfection. I’m Perfect, are you?

After reading an article written by Doug Kelley;a Professional Speaker, i can now clearly justify my deduction on being perfect.

For too long we as humans have being living with the fallacy that we are not perfect, nothing but a lifetime of mental conditioning is to blame.

Doug Kelley once said: “ Consider: when we are born, we are conditioned to strive toward what? Perfection. And at the same time, as we grow, we know that we can never attain what? Perfection. Do you not see a dichotomy here, a conflict? In other words, we are programmed and conditioned to strive for something that we can never attain. Do you see a problem with this picture? It is distorted and dysfunctional. “

How about a different perspective on perfection?

To say that you are perfect is to stay that your an egotist or grossly narcissistic right? Wrong…

Ask yourself these two questions:

  1. “Is there anyone on this planet who is more perfect at being you than you are?” (Hint, the answer is “No.”)
  2. “Therefore, are you perfect?” Yes! You are perfectly you! You are unique and there is no one else exactly like you. You are perfectly you!

Doug has a penchant for always asking these two questions and after asking he usually hears this:

they still tell me  “No, I’m not perfect.” If they do say yes, they always follow it up with a qualifying statement such as, “Okay, I’m perfect in that sense, but I still make mistakes.”

I’d elaborate, but I’m lazy and Doug does a better job at explaining it.  It’s one of those articles that i HIGHLY recommend, go read it HERE

Written by Gordon Swaby

Gordon Swaby

Founder and CEO of social learning service EduFocal.com. I’m passionate about technology, the internet and the use of technology in education. I am a recipient of Governor General’s Youth Award, the PSOJ’s 50 Under 50 Award, The commonwealth Youth Award and many others.


Lovingly made on Monday, October 27th, 2008 at 9:46 am. Filed under Interesting, Uncategorized.

  • http://gordonswaby.com Gordon Swaby

    With time comes change. My views will change from time to time, just like everything else
    I somehow feel this transcending from a debate solely about perfection and looping over into religion, heh, religion and it's technicalities * I laud the fuckers who concocted such a…*

    If “God?( i keep saying God is a title and not a name)” was not perfect then we could not consider him God, i always loved this ““Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

    I don't see why you insist on looking on this solely from a religious point of view though, not all of us are religiously inclined.

    You must understand that he was not talking about perfection in it's conventional form; it was more than anything else “a self esteem builder, self actualization.” sorta thing.

    You out of all people should know that there has to be a balance. As horrendous as this might sound i think wars, racism, hunger and every other “travesty” is just apart of the whole human cycle, they've been arounnd from the beginning of time and they are not going anywhere soon. The only reason you call these “imperfect” is because you grew up hearing it was bad…it does not fall in line with your moral compass, so it's instantly deemed as “bad”, “horrendous”, “terrible” and every other crude word we could find.

    You can't question the scriptures now can you? it says “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” that was mentioned in the article; i think that speaks for itself.

    If you are to truly understand that article, then you need to take the conventional meaning of “perfection” from your head, only then will you truly get the intended meaning

  • http://gordonswaby.com Gordon Swaby

    With time comes change. My views will change from time to time, just like everything else
    I somehow feel this transcending from a debate solely about perfection and looping over into religion, heh, religion and it's technicalities * I laud the fuckers who concocted such a…*

    If “God?( i keep saying God is a title and not a name)” was not perfect then we could not consider him God, i always loved this ““Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

    I don't see why you insist on looking on this solely from a religious point of view though, not all of us are religiously inclined.

    You must understand that he was not talking about perfection in it's conventional form; it was more than anything else “a self esteem builder, self actualization.” sorta thing.

    You out of all people should know that there has to be a balance. As horrendous as this might sound i think wars, racism, hunger and every other “travesty” is just apart of the whole human cycle, they've been arounnd from the beginning of time and they are not going anywhere soon. The only reason you call these “imperfect” is because you grew up hearing it was bad…it does not fall in line with your moral compass, so it's instantly deemed as “bad”, “horrendous”, “terrible” and every other crude word we could find.

    You can't question the scriptures now can you? it says “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” that was mentioned in the article; i think that speaks for itself.

    If you are to truly understand that article, then you need to take the conventional meaning of “perfection” from your head, only then will you truly get the intended meaning



Web Analytics