Writing rules for incomplete writers (like me)

Writing rule # 1: The more time has passed from writing a text, the easier it gets to evaluate its objectively.

As I read a month old application related to my PhD I felt like writing a postscript to the organisation and apologising for all the inconveniences possibly caused by my failures in logic and grammar. For instance, how can I not notice that I wrote “dominate” instead of “dominant”? Very annoying. Especially when my colleague, who read the text, said “you’ll spot the simple mistakes”. Well, I didn’t.

Writing rule # 2: If enough time has passed from writing a text, one wonders who this wise person is who wrote all these excellent things.

There was a similar feeling some years or decades ago in a language studio while practicing French pronunciation. Not being used to hearing my own voice, I was sure my teacher had mixed up the lines and I was listening to someone else. I was rather critical on some aspects about the recording but in general it was impressively good for a first session. Until the person made exactly the same mistake I just made a minute ago. The same applies to old texts. It is quite often when I return to an older text I wonder how I could produce such fluent wording. Unfortunately, as often I notice annoying logical errors I remember trying to cover very hard. As often time has not buried them any deeper.

How to learn to accept oneself as an incomplete writer? And please do not comment on any mistakes in logic, grammar, tone, or the position of stars and the moon.