I think that me being a slight perfectionist is a side effect of being an author. The trouble is that no one seems to know what it means for something to be perfect. It is a subjective term which depends on too many factors to be taken seriously.
I would define perfect as something being created in such a way that it never needs to change. This would mean that it is immutable or changeless. By this definition, it is questionable whether there is such a thing as perfection.
As a writer, I want my communication to be perfect. What I mean by this is that I want people to read what I have said and then know what I meant before I wrote it. The English language does not easily allow this. All languages change over time and meaning tends to be lost during the change.
Obviously, communication is not perfect. I think that, instead of aiming for perfect, I can aim for writing something that is at least relevant to someone. They may not understand exactly what I meant by something I wrote but if they can relate to it because they are experiencing something that makes them question the relevance of something, then I have done my job.
To change is to be imperfect, to have problems, to exist. The only way I would ever be perfect is to stop existing. I wonder if the goal of perfection is worth it.