Mastering Music

It is unclear to me whether or not learning to be incredibly good at something doesn't defeat the some part of the overall purpose. I was thinking, comparing the inspiration that first makes you want to pursue something, the way one might sit and worry over a chord book until you can play the song, with the requirements of being truly good at it-- the discipline of the practitioner. They are different ways of approaching the same goal-- like the difference between having a baby and making a human being from scratch. I guess it is a good analogy because my question would go something like this: Do musicians get any closer to making music than scientists get to making life?
Specifically, do guitarist have the same relationship with early bluemasters/musicians as doctors have with say witch-doctors. If you think about it there are a lot of similarities. Both disciplines have benifited from study and the sharing of knowledge in ways that they never would have if left to the etheral persona of witch-crafting. I have a friend who was just become a professional mid-wife and I told her I was very excited for her. We talked about the work she had done to get there and I realized that she knew a lot about the human body and was qualified to work as a nurse. I thought I was encouraging when I said, "So, why don't you get your PhD?" she didn't snap or anything but she had a very interesting answer that I will paraphrase here. She said that the discipline required to become a doctor included some work ethics, ways of viewing patients that she did not ascribe to. She continued that she would in fact have to behave in ways that she felt were contrary to her profession or at least her personal ethic. That becoming a doctor would require her to act differently with patients-- it would change her bedside manner. Needless to say the comment stayed with me.
It is not like you really have a choice. If you want to be good at something you have to pursue it. You have to take on the discipline and sit at it's feet and wait on it hand and foot. But the discipline of mastering a thing can change the way you experience it.
It reminds of what it was like to practice magic. I was a magicians assistant in the early days. My greatest trick was the "Metamorphosis". I would put the magician in a straight jacket, tie him in chains, put him in a canvas, cinch it with chains and close padlocks through the links. That last part was done while he stood in the open trunk. Then he was pushed down and the lid was closed. I then stood on the box raised the curtain up around me with my arms-- I would count to three and he would finish the count to five. The box would be opened and I would be let out of the bag & padlocks & straight jacket. When I see magic done today it never really grabs me the way it used to. But I have a few card tricks that I enjoy doing for people. It is so cool to see the look on the faces of people who really are amazed. It is not like you really have a choice. If you want to do the trick you have to learn how it is done. And so in some sense it that magic stops for you.
What I am thinking about today is how you have to go beyond the discipline to achieve your original goal. You have to take everything that you have learned and turn it back into magic. Sometimes I think my sense of what empiricism is focuses to heavily on it -- logically obtained knowledge of things-- practice processes. In the end the magic is in the story your ability to draw them in-- to relay your passion about your discipline in such a way that it looks-- simple. That is why it is one of my favorite quotes, Edward Albee, The Zoo Story:

"Sometimes, you have to go a long way out of your way in order to come back a short distance correctly."

You go through the whole in the wall but when you come back you are not the same. Serious Ying and Yang stuff man!