How can something be more perfect than perfect?

from comment 5: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/comment-page-1/#comment-35747

".... there are two ways in which something can be perfected. One is by repairing a defect. That is a movement from imperfection to perfection. That’s the kind of perfection with which we are most familiar.
Another kind of perfection is not from imperfection, but from perfection to still greater perfection. The saints in heaven do not all have the same glory. Those who by grace lived lives of heroic virtue have great glory. Those who by grace made it in by ‘the skin of their teeth,’ as it were, have less glory. But none of the saints in heaven is in a condition of imperfection. Even the ones who have the least glory are still perfect in the sense that there is no defect in them. At the same time, the greater the glory, the greater the perfection, because a thing is more perfect the more it partakes of and shares in God who is all Perfection. A person who is just baptized is not, say, 30% righteous. He is 100% righteous, because of the infused agape he has received. But as he grows in agape, through the sacraments, prayer, and works of charity, he grows in righteousness. In this process his ‘cup’ is enlarged, as it were, such that his 100% full small cup is now a 100% full larger cup. The growth in righteousness was not from 30% righteousness to some higher percentage of righteousness; it was from 100% to a larger 100%, from glory to still greater glory, from righteousness to still greater righteousness, from perfection to still greater perfection.

This above ties in with this below found in comment 448 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/#comment-118692

 The notion that there are two distinct ultimate moral standards is a return to a form of Manichean dualism. But if one rejects such dualism in favor of monotheism, and also conceives of the one ultimate moral standard as perfect law-keeping in the list-paradigm sense described above, then for a person who has sinned at least once, perfect sanctification is subsequently and permanently impossible. That’s because no how matter how much righteousness is attained by that person, since the past is unchanged (and unchangeable), the person can never attain the condition of having-perfectly-kept-all-the-laws. And in the list-paradigm, that is the only ultimate moral standard, given the falsity of Manichean dualism and the truth of monotheism. The highest sanctification that person will be able to attain remains in violation of the righteousness of the one and only ultimate standard of righteousness. Given this conception of righteousness, the ‘saved’ in heaven are necessarily therefore everlastingly unsanctified, i.e. never brought to perfect sanctification. Not only during this present life, but even in heaven forever, they remain simul iustus et peccator — not in the sense of continuing to sin, but in the sense that their sanctification (i.e. internal righteousness) is in violation of the standard of righteousness they have by extra nos imputation, and thus they remain unsanctified and intrinsically (as opposed to extra nos) unrighteous. Complete sanctification is therefore only possible for one who is innocent, not one who is guilty.

This consequence does not follow under the agape paradigm, however, because the person’s righteousness is determined by the presence of agape in him or her. Under this paradigm even a horrendous sinner can become a great saint, because this person can come to have a great share ofagape. And on this paradigm, that’s just what sanctification in essence is, namely, having agape. Therefore, on this paradigm, every saint in heaven, including all those who sinned while on earth, can be, and is, truly and fully sanctified. Righteousness as agape allows there to be gradations of perfect righteousness, none in violation of Agape itself (Himself). Each saint in heaven is perfectly and completely sanctified, even though not all in heaven are equally sanctified. That is not a possibility in the list-paradigm conception of righteousness.