As I sit here, listening to a cd of classical music, I find myself in awe of the artists I'm listening to.
After reflecting on my awe of the musicians, I've come to the realization that this sense of awe is not limited to musicians. I'm awed by any demonstration of mastery of a craft or skill. This is not to say all demonstrations, public or private, invoke this emotion. Oh I can and do admire someone who demonstrates mere competency. In these cases, it is not the demonstration I admire. Rather it is the courage and commitment of the person behind the demonstration I admire.
While I speak of "mere competence," competence in any skill or craft is not "mere" anything. There are many people who aspire to the level of competency. Unfortunately, there are also many people "out there" who, upon becoming competent, believe themselves "masters." It is a sad fact that these beliefs are often reinforced by fans and supporters and by those who aspire to competence (often referred to as "dabblers".) The difference in skill level between dabblers and those who are truly competent is usually vast enough to encourage the belief of mastery.
As an example, let's look at playing the violin. I am, at best, a skillful dabbler. In reality I am probably closer to a mediocre dabbler. When I compare myself to the violinists in the Austin Symphony Orchestra, it is tempting to think of them as masters of the violin. If I had not heard a few of the true master violinists, I would view the ASO violinists as masters. As skillful as these violinists may be, they are "only" competent. I once had the pleasure of hearing Itzhak Perlman in concert. The best of the ASO violinists look and sound like amateurs next to his performance.
Looking at another field, I am a martial artist. I have been told that I'm good. Some of my younger students insist I am a master. I know, however, that though I may be skilled, I am no more than competent. It is the skill difference between those students and myself as well as a lack of exposure to a true master martial artist that allows them to view me as a master.
So what, then, is the dividing line between "dabbler," "competence," and "mastery"? I do not know if there is a codified answer to that; however, it seems to me that the dividing line is best seen in terms of a demonstration's effect on an observer. Someone who dabbles usually creates an "isn't that nice" or "that looks like fun" reaction, but no more than that. Someone who is competent elicits an emotional response. There may even be an element of "that looks like fun" to it, but the defining characteristic is an emotional connection. A master will not only create that emotional connection, but will use that connection to draw an observer in so that all connections to the here-and-now drop away. The observer enters a state of being that is so focused on the display that all other emotional and psychological connections disappear. For a brief period of time, the display of a master's craft becomes the whole of the observer's universe.
Those who dabble, participate in the world.
Those who are competent, manipulate the world.
Those who are masters, create the world.
