“Yet this alien is not the “gaseous invertebrate” of negative theology – but an immanent other, or as Miéville puts it, “a bad numinous, manifesting often at a much closer scale, right up tentacular in your face, and casually apocalyptic” (Miéville 2012, 381). It is this combination of inaccessibility and intimacy, I will argue, that makes the Weird apt for thinking about the temporally complex politics of posthuman becoming.[1] In Posthuman Life I argue for a position I call “Speculative posthumanism” (SP). SP claims, baldly, that there could be posthumans: that is, there could be powerful nonhuman agents arising through some human-instigated technological process. I’ve argued that the best way to conceptualize the posthuman here is in terms of agential independence – or disconnection. Roughly, an agent is posthuman if it can act outside of the “Wide Human” – the system of institutions, cultures, and techniques which reciprocally depend on us biological (“narrow”) humans (Roden 2012; Roden 2014: 109-113). Now, as Ray Brassier usefully remind us in the context of the realism debate, mind-independence does not entail unintelligibility (“concept-independence”). This applies also to the agential independence specified by the Disconnection Thesis (Brassier 2011, 58). However, I think there are reasons to allow that posthumans could be effectively uninterpretable. That is, among the class of possible posthumans – we have reason to believe that there might be radical aliens. – See more at: http://enemyindustry.net/blog/?p=6133
synthetic zerØ 
Odd, though it oughtn’t to have been, to read this entry. Had just finished the SOUTHERN REACH trilogy, and was reading various interpretations – then opened email to see – THOSE RABBITS! I wonder – if a “posthuman” creature can be an inexplicable animal, can it also be a human transformed (as we seem to crave) into a machine? The writing arm in the tower is as posthuman as the dolphin with the human eye. It is so difficult to be as optimistic as the vision asks.
if you follow the link to DR’s blog he goes into what he is after in some detail but if it takes you on different but fruitful lines of flight than enjoy the ride.
I think it prudent to consider what ‘uninterpretable’ can mean. If the field of interpretability remains unto itself, this means human is always self referential; a flower is interpretable only because it is ‘unto human’ (correlational). But the flower in itself is uninterpretable, it resides within its own ontological area, so to speak. (OOO).
Further, if we begin to really undetstand at least Zizek, that which ‘remains’ after (post) the capitalisy analysis, is indeed what is in-itself human (post-human).
It is thus the ‘ante-‘ human situation, what we usually call subjectivity,that consistently projects itself to some ‘alien’ ecounter ‘out there’ in space or the future.
Cool little ditty. I think a fundamental difference involved with this path is between ‘standing on the edge’ ofnothingness, of a knowing of conceptual fault, and actually encountering nothing.
Knowing of it by logical defaults leads to a human ethical reaction. Actually encountering nothing annihilates what is ethical, so the reaction becomes inevitable and loses its chance if being startling or even weird. That indeed is what constitues weird for the one who only knows the logical defaults, who cannot concieve of having no reaction.
DR’s fleshing out a kind of ‘dark’ phenomenology, the ‘weird’ in this case is a category:
http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2011/03/the-weird-a-discussion-of-fiction-and-politics-with-china-mieville/