To any system of Order-Principle^x the actions of the same system after another iteration of the Ordering-Principle will seem like a conspiracy.


Denkern employs words with defined meanings. These are given here:

Amtsschimmel:  Amtsschimmel is a german word for a sympton that surfaces when a system turns from serving to self-serving.
Any and all systems are created to fulfil a purpose, to serve. The system can fulfil this function as long the iterational integrity (of its growth) is maintained. During the development / growth and without proper checks this iterational integrity tends to be compromised by (the Ordering-Principle of) Self-preservation. Though it can be considered to be a healthy development, since, this also grows as system, it will develop to the point where Self-preservation takes priority over purpose. This is when Amtsschimmel shows itself: Serving Self instead of serving. A comparable english equivalent could be paper tiger. It does present itself more clearly in paper (admin) environments, is however equally at home in any system.

Info-Container:  Computerscience has seduced us into considering information as a discrete datum. This is very limiting. Life saves Information as processing  pathway bundles, where a datum itself is the result of a processing pathway bundle. This is what I refer to when I say Info-container, much like an x or y in Algebra, or even e.g. 3: This can also be viewed as an info-container containing all processing pathways that add to its creation.
I talk of info-containers to again sensitise you to that viewpoint.

Fact: When I use the word fact I do so in the context of a fact being a tool that developed out of an act or a bundle of acts being fixed. Much a coffee mug, or the sky is blue, have been fixed so that in everyday life we do not have constantly have present or think about all the processes that came together to produce that "tool". I consider a fact to be short code for a f-act / fixed act.

Complex:  A system stays purpose-led functional as long as its Ordering-Principle maintains iterational integrity. A system grows from a simple through each iteration of its OP into a complex system. The more iterations are executed the more complex a system will (appear to) be. But for as long as the system stays complex it will have followed its OP.
Common use does not clearly differentiate between complex and complicated, using them interchangeably. A fractal, e.g. is highly complex generated from a simple OP_n, and for as long this OP_n (its algorithm) is executed with iterational integrity each iteration (leading to a higher Order-Potential OP_n^x, will deliver a more complex structure.

Differentiation begets understanding. See Complicated to complete this picture.

Complicated:  A complication in a system occurs when the Ordering-Principle (OP_n) of a system is corrupted, i.e. any iteration "loses" its integrity. When this happens the system cannot fulfil its purpose-led functionality - that is now compromised. The system cannot achieve its purpose. 
The iterational integrity of OP_n1 is compromised by an other OP_n2.
Complications are comparable to a short-circuit in an electrical system, they are "energy-bleeders" that will damage the purpose-led functionality of  a system, even up to the death of that system.

Logic:  Logic is the commonly used word to describe the integral execution of a rule set and describes the structure this brings about. It is also the tool to check for iterational integrity. When I use the word logic I refer to the developed applicable rule set of a system. When I use Ordering-Prinziple  or Ordering-Principle I include the development of the same. 

Ordering-Potential:  The Ordering-Potential (OP_^x) is the indicator for how often the Ordering-Principle (OP_n) has been applied to (the) reality to bring about the system and thus gives an expression on the complexity of a system.
Notation: OP_n^x

Ordering-Principle:  The Ordering-Principle refers to the use of OP within the bounds of time.

Ordering-Protocol:  The Ordering-Protocol refers to all of the "program that begets an order", a system. Any system is generated with a functional purpose, it is created to be applied to reality and to carve from reality a worklihood, i.e. create some thing from no thing. The OP_n describes the completeness of that rule set: Its beginning, its growth, its application, its use, its coalescence into something "solid", the whole package. The Ordering-Protocol is not any physical change to reality, it refers to how the reality is being viewed. Applying an OP_n to a reality creates a worklihood, i.e. it begets a creation.
Notation: OP_n (n::System n)

Protocol and Principle:  I employ the word Protocol as unbound by time, an OP itself, or scale and Principle within the constraints of time.
Using Protocol removes logic constraints imposed by the use of time.
Using Principle is mostly easier for a person as this is a common, famliiar ground.
A protocol or principle is a as much as a rule set to follow as it is a notation of what has happened or what has to happen.

The application of a protocol or a principle to a reality does not change that reality.

Reality:  Reality is that which lacks definition: Chaos, Primordial Soup, The Great Unknown. No Thing. The Field. To you, personally, or as a group, or as a volk.
Reality refers to that No-Thing, that Unknown to which you apply an Ordering-Principle to make known and understand, to create Some-Thing, a worklihood.
The application of an Ordering-Principle to a reality does not change that reality.
Since any Ordering-Principle can be applied to a reality a reality can "produce" a) any number of creations, or worklihoods and b) any number of the same worklihoods at differing Order-Potentials.

It is akin to the field on which you grow your crops: You demarcate a plot and plant a seed, aka the kernel which contains the OP_n. Through applied work (iterating the OP)  some thing grows from no-thing.

System:  A system is a generic term for a definable, or demarcatable, function-fulfilling structure that has been brought about by applying an Ordering-Principle to a reality.

Worklihood:  stems from Creating through work applied, and refers to that which is created from a reality by applying an Ordering-Principle. That which has now been defined and can be used. The end-result of applying an Ordering Protocol.
A worklihood can be of any Ordering-Potential.
A worklihood can differ from another by a) the Ordering-Principle used or b) the Ordering-Potential achieved by ^x or ^y iterations of the same Ordering-Principle.
This is a differentiation to reality which is commonly used for both the Unknown, Chaos, etc, and that which is created from the Unknown, Chaos, etc.

Any number of worklihoods can group together to form anothers reality, anothers field.

Time:  That which we call time is but a realisation protocol. The application of this realisation protocol (time) is like an applying an adressing-algorithm to put info-containers in the correct sequence.