It seems to me that:
Manifestation presumes a context – hence some meaning emerging. To manifest is to show, or to make x available to Be sensed. This element of availability to be sensed is what seems to presume context. The context might be even the very seemingly meaningful for the manifestor.
If I fancy manifesting but do not make the produce of that fancy in a way that Could be avaliable for others to extrasct meanings, nor for myself to have an understanding of what it is about – then perhaps the produce of the activity is not manifestation but a transmission?
By living, just being a Being, an entity – rocks, fish, waves, clouds, gallaxies, dark matter, etc. – all transmit. Produce elements From themselves into the interval between entities – which is meaningless and clueless.
Transmission happens from me to the rest of whatever – even if i was a decomposing body already.
Sure, this transmission, if and when interacts, having friction with others, can become – be made – into some meaningful manifestation. However, it does not require that meaning nor manifestation to be.
In this sense, I think, the notion of being a transmission is not the same as the contextualised object. In the context language, the object requires an audience to be valuable – if not even to Be.
In transmission, I don’t know that there is an object, and if indeed there is – it does not require meanings. Meanings are a possiblity, but not the only one.
Since meanings, in terms of human manifestation, are between humans. ie I do not know what a bit of moon rock painted black placed in a dark box might mean for an ai or a lion. I have to think that it might not mean anything for any of them. However, the question of meaning is directed to humans. In that sense, meanings production in itself is human centric.
A post human does not require human meanings to be, no?