operators in strands because we are not single network actors but contantly multiple, and constantly in between via strands that are yet to be networked.
Also, the idea of operators is that time and rhythm allows the multiplicity
operators as with strands, allows for different capacities of rhythmicality of strand sequences that might determain the place in the sequences – not of importance.
if because a human operator can do x networks and Y strands at any given time, but can not lift 1tone rocks, however this crane can. the crane might come at the end of the seuence of 1tone rock lifting, but both are eqully interdepended. (unless one values another less, but that is via a judgment value not an innate functionality..)
in that sense, both roo and rhythmic aesthtics offer a to make an Opera that radicalises the very notion of opera. we can contrast that with the epistemological post human opera, and how that opera spoke about a vision of post human rather than being past the human centric
past post-human are the operational shared elements like dna-strands.. that is why perhaps there is in this idea a radical aspect that afaik is no where i bumped – in the elemnts equality discourse.. the shared atoms rather than time-space.. shared linkables, sequaenables, rhythmicales, connectables.. operatables..
if we were in same time-space but had a different frequencies that are in sequences of different link-ables – we’d not hookup.. a freq made of 101000100100100010 might hook up with akkkakkhjakkka because they are made of chararters that might operate with one another. However these will not operate with a frequncy made of un-utterables (eg holocaust and concepts of sacredness) Or one made of spaces between characters? Nope these might operate.. OK.. Spaces imagined between characters like: SpaceBetweenCharNotNeededThere