I think consciously maintaining a collective categorization of entities, or independently maintaining a collective categorization of entities is radical. More p

I think consciously maintaining a collective categorization of entities, or independently maintaining a collective categorization of entities is radical. More people might discover abstract math on their own, simply because it hasn't been purified down to it's symbolic form. The relationships naturally arise out of our own decisions and plans in how we mentally construct relationships between entity forms, and notice the differences and variations between person to person. I think tradition is important, but so is learning how to think totally differently in a fundamental way - and I think that's what these educators see in this specific case as radical. They see it as a creating a foundation of how to think first, then it is followed by lesson plans. It may affect the way people learn to organize and think about information, or it may not. Maybe people in the future will refine information down to essential subject form, because the chaos in connectivity between information forms has become too complex to reason about, and consequently becomes too complex to do anything with (aside from think). These things happen already. The difference is a magnitude of scale. Will an entire generation be raised with these characteristics?