One who would proceed philosophically, must approach the question by asking what is ideology? You say:
"If ideology is a box with thinking patterns or a set of ideas about
some point, how can i agree without stay inside this box?"
The next step is, to ask you, you yourself, ad hominem (in the older sense as that conception grew into the Western world, essential to Western existence, and not in the sense on the Wikipedia page), do you understand ideology that way? What's your opinion about the answer to the question, What is ideology? Put another way, how does the issue appear to you?
If we stay with the answer you give, it seems like a rule. Defined by the, e.g., "ten questions". If that is what ideology is, then there is nothing to be said except whether you answered the questions.
So, one has to ask, can one, oneself, adress one's knowing of what ideology means in another way? Gramsci offers two understandings. Vis, one's whole view of life (one's consciousness or "class consciousness"), or, on the other hand, a doctrine of some kind.
Ideology as a doctrine can mean: there's something I prefer, for example, the equality of women to men, Feminism, and then I supply a list of facts and arguments to defend that view. I think under this understanding one can answer
"I want a way to understand ideology, understand the important things
on it without being part of it. How can i do that?"
by saying, I agree that the facts you bring forward are accurate, or valid, I agree that you make solid arguments. However, I don't subscribe to your 'ism' or group. One can, e.g., agree with all the arguments, but still not agree with the gist of the conclusion, or the value (form of consciousness) that is supposed to follow from the arguments and selected facts.