a Meditation on Mastery:
a) the Savant - A person who, through genetic fortune, is biologically suited to a particular skill. This cosmic gift is associated with a wide range of peculiarities, many of which can impede a person's ability to use their gift or to otherwise participate normally in society.
b) the Zealot - A person who, through any number of motivations, becomes obsessively dedicated to a particular craft or skill. This orientation is widely perceived as dedication, but is frequently associated with closed minded-ness or 'ivory tower-ism'. Masters of this type are frequently lauded for their zealotry, but this praise is almost ubiquitously from other zealots, and thus, do not represent the opinion of a broader humanity (1).
c) the Dilettante (2) - A person who, for reasons that are arguably unperceivable in their work, are satisfied with a skill level beneath Mastery. Arguably a dilettante could achieve mastery, but the time requirement is sufficiently great that their final body of work will always be inferior, either through quality or quantity, to that of a genuine Master.
d) ???
Is there a fourth type of Master? Is genuine Mastery of a skill-set achievable without the limiting imbalances listed above? Is it possible to Master something without sacrificing the ability to apply it, well, masterfully?
Notes:
1 - I am (idealistically and optimistically) suggesting that humanity is motivated by a desire to improve themselves individually and collectively. The invalidity of this notion is not considered here.
2 - I am not familiar with an adequate term for this in English. "Dilettante" is insufficient because it suggests only a superficial interest. Likewise, "amateur" won't do because it suggests an inadequate skill-level. If it were appropriate, I would prefer the Arabic term "muHibun" ( مُحِبّ ), which connotes a non-professional with sufficient skill who is driven primarily by love.
b) the Zealot - A person who, through any number of motivations, becomes obsessively dedicated to a particular craft or skill. This orientation is widely perceived as dedication, but is frequently associated with closed minded-ness or 'ivory tower-ism'. Masters of this type are frequently lauded for their zealotry, but this praise is almost ubiquitously from other zealots, and thus, do not represent the opinion of a broader humanity (1).
c) the Dilettante (2) - A person who, for reasons that are arguably unperceivable in their work, are satisfied with a skill level beneath Mastery. Arguably a dilettante could achieve mastery, but the time requirement is sufficiently great that their final body of work will always be inferior, either through quality or quantity, to that of a genuine Master.
d) ???
Is there a fourth type of Master? Is genuine Mastery of a skill-set achievable without the limiting imbalances listed above? Is it possible to Master something without sacrificing the ability to apply it, well, masterfully?
Notes:
1 - I am (idealistically and optimistically) suggesting that humanity is motivated by a desire to improve themselves individually and collectively. The invalidity of this notion is not considered here.
2 - I am not familiar with an adequate term for this in English. "Dilettante" is insufficient because it suggests only a superficial interest. Likewise, "amateur" won't do because it suggests an inadequate skill-level. If it were appropriate, I would prefer the Arabic term "muHibun" ( مُحِبّ ), which connotes a non-professional with sufficient skill who is driven primarily by love.