I'm not exactly saying we should do away with organising principles. I'm saying I'm pretty confident that we can't, and that this is a shame given their destructive qualities.
Wouldn't you say that 'organising principles' can only become destructive if (note, this if
is a possibility, not a certainty):
- there is a lack of awareness; or
- the organising principle is poorly formed; or
- the wrong organising principle is chosen?
I understand most peoples concept of ideology, but due to how our brains work, I see little way of avoiding such...without a resulting litany of choices 'not to act' (which in reality is rarely the only way to handle a conflict, or even your life - which will face many conflicts...more if you act)...
...so my view is that philosophy should and can enhance 'doing' as well as 'being'
...part of doing is awareness, and part of doing is our numerous automatic systems. Expanding awareness is good, but I've found that awareness will often be subverted by your automated systems if they are poorly developed. I don't accept a general inaction as truly living (and I view 'passive being' as a poorer cousin of 'active being')...so the choice left is to develop both my awareness AND my automatic systems (The latter actually seems more difficult, and as you go about improving it, you gain a much greater understanding of both yourself, and other people, in relation to both systems, and awareness)
It is this fundamental view of mine that seeds itself in many of my answers (not all), and finds itself in my initial reply to this post.
Fundamental though it is - the repercussions of it seem to be always developing
To me 'no ideology' at all isn't an important goal. But testing my beliefs and systems is (an important goal). Likely it achieves the same outcome, but the focus is on activity, rather than on a phrase that may have power to stop activity (as I mentioned earlier, language has power)