I think being compressible is a feature of good ideas though? I also don't like creating isms or doctrines myself, but I do want my fellow thinkers, yourself included, to be able to understand the position and narrative that I'm operating from. I don't think you are without a position or narrative. so then compressing it is more about creating a useful interface. In the same way that a software module could expose all of its private methods and internal functionality, but that's not helpful to the developer calling upon it. They want a small API surface with deep functionality hidden until they need it. Similarly, an organization being about something is a useful abstraction. You don't have to accept it as some rigid ontology. Does that make sense?
There’s often pressure to have a compressible position and narrative , eg when it comes to fundraising, and answering “so what do you do/what are you about” type questions, but I personally feel a lot of dissonance around characterizing my org as being “about” “cooperative alignment” and stuff like that