It is my opinion that these are largely objective; universally applicable to anyone. Mastery- I mean excelling at something, be it physics, art, writing, sailing, female seduction, or skydiving. If you could reduce it down to basic psychological principles, what would they be? What did Beethoveen and Einstein have that we lack, other than mere natural born talent and intellect? What was the lifestyle, world perspective, daily routine, habits of thought? I want to be great, I thirst for greatness, so I’ve been thinking a lot about the principles of mastery lately.
Aspberger’s syndrome?
perhaps it isnt what they have and we don’t but the other way around, perhaps it is something that holds us back and they arent held by it.
One could say fear being a simple conclusion, einstine wasnt afraid of being wrong, mastery of something would likely be fairly easy if you weren’t afraid of the conciquences.
Yeah our consumerist culture has a way of instilling fear from an early age- fear of alienation (from a lifestyle which would have traditionally been seen as wasteful and hedonistic). Those who don’t toe the line of the shallow tyrannical majority are regularly subjected to resentment and mockery (“Einstein” as an insult on a par with “asshole”). How many budding geniuses never realized their potential due to the armada of mediocre minds keeping them in check? And when someone exceptional does emerge, what usually happens? He gets mauled- by universities, corporations, parents, teachers. This only leads to self-consciousness- awareness that he is different- which has a way of destroying talent.
perhaps, but perhaps not entirely that way, when I fear hights it is not because people tell me to, it is because I hit the ground and it hurt. the fear of failure is generally the same, we do not fear failing but the conciquences of that failure.
when I look past the pain from hitting the ground I can begin to master the breakfall, when I look past the conciquences of failure then I can truly master my art.
Peace
I was only partially joking
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_spe … n_autistic
If you think it is society that holds people back, well, since these people have a hard time relating to other people, it follows that they certainly wouldn’t have been held back.
Doesn’t that support my theory? They weren’t held back, perhaps not because of their autism/Asperger’s, but because of the misanthropic aspects of those conditions (or just their inherent misanthropy). To the extent that they involved themselves with lesser minds, their genius was hindered:
I recall the aphorism “Unless you go beyond what you have already mastered, you will never grow.”- as it applies to people. Since it’s impossible for more than one person to tread into the unknown (lest it become known), isn’t solitude (and perhaps even misanthropy) essential to genius?
probably an overly personal note on the matter but, I am generally very good at games, card games, board games, etc.
One thing I have knoticed is that when you get to a certin point no one wants to play with you any longer, so I hold back even though I know I can do better, and so I do not improve for the sake of being able to play in the first place. When I do play to my fullest it doesnt take very long for me to be very alone with no one to practice with.
In a context like this it is a very unplesant reality to be left alone, but if you were truly not attached to others then It wouldnt be a problem. or is this slightly off base?
Yes, that’s a good example. The less lonely you felt (due to some unusual mental condition or not), the easier it would be for you to excel. The best card player in the world would have to reach a point where playing with others would no longer allow him to excel further. As it applies to something more useful like physics, the best minds would reach a point where debating their theories with others would be redundant to the cause of knowledge, since their expertise becomes so unique (initially, anyway, until it gets accepted by the wider community). It follows that those who are misanthropic, who can handle being alone for long periods of time without getting lonely would, all other factors being equal, be more likely to excel.
It goes deeper than that though. I think mastery (even if it’s something you love) requires a kind of mental toughness that makes use of the “higher” or less hedonistic areas of the brain. You almost need to block out those areas that would only distract you and impede your focus. Even if you’re passionate, it can still be like fighting a battle (and many who achieve mastery of something would claim that they wouldn’t have it any other way).
I notice than when I do an intensive exercise routine, later my mind tends to respond and is primed to take on new conscious challenges. So the fundamental aspects of energy and tenacity must relate to it.
I wouldnt say one would need to rely on ones higher brain functions to attain mastery, some of my best learning experiances where when I had stopped trying and simply acted in regards to the art of it.
A chief example being that I had played chess with a person who had beaten me time and time again in fairly short order, it was only when I accepted that I was going to lose that I could beat him.
I learned later that the reason being that when I tried to beat him I focused so intently on that goal that I missed a number of openings he had left, when I had accepted my own defeat I saw these openings and was able to use them advantagiously.
though this may seem absurd to others it has taught me quite a lot.
also on a side note: the first game that I won took about three hours, after I beat him three times he stopped playing against me. something about a bruised ego.
That’s still focusing though- it’s just broadening your focus from the goal of winning to the whole game, which makes sense when excelling at anything; anything worth excelling at is going to be potentially infinitely complex.
Some rely more on intuition, instinct, feeling, but of course that doesn’t work for everyone. Some succeed much better with a highly analytical approach.
One thing we can be certain of: mastery can’t be taught. It’s a very subjective experience.
that I can agree with, though you can pass on the fundimentals and basics, each person must find their own understanding of them and fit that into their ability set.
Not only mastery, but life itself, healthy and vital life, it comes from passion. Raw pleasure is the fertility and the creativity.
Mastery is very Cernunnosian. It is suppressed by slave-morality. Slave-morality wants you to be humble, meek, submissive and self-deconstructive. Master-morality affirms the panikon-deimanian. It affirms and actuates strong personal desire, instead of aborting it and sacrificing the self to the whims of the flustered mob.
“Be above it! Make the world serve your purpose, but do not serve it.”
That man, Johann, he is an example of master-morality.
You’ve hit the nail on the head there. The genius or potential genius is constantly ridiculed by the mob. If one isn’t a happy little consumer gratifying his/her petty desires then one is seen as odd.
The Sorceror: ‘…in a few moments, the proof of my mastery will be complete!’