First, I apologise for the nebulous nature of my title but I can't adequately explain myself concisely.
I am about to start an MSc in pure maths after a fairly shaky undergraduate degree. I am very passionate about maths but I have several problems with self-learning which I can't seem to cure (even after 4 years of trying hard!) and they are extremely detrimental to my progress. I would be delighted to receive any advice for this (admittedly very particular) set of circumstances or to hear from anyone who is somewhat similar in nature but has found a way through. For brevity's sake I will just list the problems I have:
I seem to be obsessed with understanding "the basics"; that is, whenever trying to learn something new, say a first course on modular forms, I go back and try to systematize and relearn all the undergraduate complex analysis I did, which, in turn, leads me to go back and relearn all the undergraduate real analysis I did, which, in turn, takes me back to some naive set theory etc. This really slows progress (pretty much to a stop) but it just feels so wrong not to understand the basics first.
Often, when I learn a new subject, I have several different treatments of it at my disposal, each of which, naturally, takes its own perspective on the material. As such, I proceed to read the corresponding chapters of each the 5 or 6 (say) expositions and try to order the material optimally or put it in the most general setting (i.e. in categorical language). This is often very difficult (and, again, very time-consuming) and so I use LaTeX in an attempt to make "re-ordering without re-writing" easier but then I get a bit obsessed with the layout and formatting...
I am very pedantic about proofs. For example, I really dislike proofs which appeal to geometry (in the naive sense i.e. plane geometry) because there seem to be so many special cases to check and texts always seem to dismiss such things as obvious or relegate them to exercises. Also, "tedious" details such as "this map is obviously continuous" or "we can clearly assume wlog..." really bog me down. I find that, often, to give a careful proof of such things can be quite intricate.
There are definitely a few more points/clarifications I could make but this post is quite lengthy as it is and so I'll stop there for now.
As I say, any help would be greatly appreciated - I have asked many people and read many articles over the past years to try to overcome these difficulties but I just can't crack it.