Meaning is an invention. If enough people invent or borrow other peoples inventions, we say that meaning has an objective existence. However, a meaning can be modified over time, and so it may lack permanence. A temporary meaning isn't really objective if it keeps changing.

Computers are an invention too, and can be modified over time. So I guess they're not objective?

My current view on meaning is blurry to say the least. I'm still rather new to existentialism and philosophy in general... but the way I see it presently is this: a meaning is a story that assigns an object, circumstance, or otherwise with a value. As for the existential tangibility of these stories, I don't think I'm in any position yet to say whether it exists - at least not quite yet.

If there is no meaning, then how can I know what you mean? Are we even talking to each other?

You question whether meaning exists, yet you also seem to acknowledge that meaning exists. And even if you refuse to acknowledge its existence, you'd nevertheless be one big walking, talking contradiction.

Yes, meaning exists. It is encountered on a daily basis. Yes, people can and do express different meanings, and find different things meaningful, and meaningful in different ways, and to varying degrees. This is all obvious and rather boring.

The real question is: what do you mean?

A meaning is a story that assigns an object, circumstance, or otherwise with a value. — Albert Keirkenhaur

A stop sign has a meaning. So does sticking up your middle finger. So, you're saying that a stop sign and sticking up your middle finger each have a story that assigns an object, circumstance, or otherwise with a value? Perhaps. Although it seems to me that there are better ways of putting it.

Or do you mean to talk exclusively about some more particular kind of meaning that you have in mind? Some special philosophical artistic meaning, perhaps?

As for the existential tangibility of these stories, I don't think I'm in any position yet to say whether it exists - at least not quite yet. — Albert Keirkenhaur

Existential tangibility? What's that? What do you mean?

But one thing I've come across is that meaning is fragile and disposable. You could have a painting that was assigned a meaning and value by the artist, and have the same painting be assigned a meaning and value by the admirer. Is one meaning more correct than the other? Are they both abstractly contrived fabrications? Are they both correct? — Albert Keirkenhaur

None of those questions make sense outside of a particular context. The only sensible answer is itself a question: in accordance with what standard?

By existential tangibility I mean something that remains true even through an external disembodied perspective. I.e., ''matter exists'' is found to be true even if we imagine leaving our human perspective of these senses we have no choice but to be familiar with and imagine looking at the world like an invisible spectator. So IMO the existence of matter is existentially tangible not because the proof is in the pudding, but because the proof IS the pudding. Something not existentially tangible would be ''greed'' for example. Remember, the disembodied observer Isn't human. The observer looks at greed and is only capable of noting unconventional behaviors in comparison to ones we'd consider conventional- the un-greedy ones. What I mean by this ''observer'' character is a POV that is separate of human bias and mindset. A perspective as close to objective reality as possibly conceivable.

As for what I mean by 'stories', an example would be that the story or meaning of a lightbulb is to produce light. The story of a leaf is that it produces chlorophyll and photosynthesizes. I know it's like i'm hopping from sides of the fence here in relation to the existence of meaning. That's because part of me agrees with what you said about ''of course it exists/this is obvious and boring''
and part of me is saying that this ''obviousness'' is exactly what the ego employs to assuage truths that the psyche is developed to avoid.

Some art likes to challenge our habits of interpreting the meanings of things, for when something appears ambiguous, obscure, or meaningless we will unsurprisingly assign it more or less arbitrary meanings.

But things do not need to be assigned meanings to have meanings. Meanings are found as we interact with things, and what we assign them are names or descriptions which refer to the meanings we found.

By existential tangibility I mean something that remains true even through an external disembodied perspective. I.e., ''matter exists'' is found to be true even if we imagine leaving our human perspective of these senses we have no choice but to be familiar with and imagine looking at the world like an invisible spectator. So IMO the existence of matter is existentially tangible not because the proof is in the pudding, but because the proof IS the pudding. Something not existentially tangible would be ''greed'' for example. Remember, the disembodied observer Isn't human. The observer looks at greed and is only capable of noting unconventional behaviors in comparison to ones we'd consider conventional- the un-greedy ones. What I mean by this ''observer'' character is a POV that is separate of human bias and mindset. A perspective as close to objective reality as possibly conceivable. — Albert Keirkenhaur

Blimey. You could've just said "objective".

As for what I mean by 'stories', an example would be that the story or meaning of a lightbulb is to produce light. — Albert Keirkenhaur

You're describing its primary function or purpose, and unusually calling it a story or meaning. It sounds kind of pretentious. I work in a store that sells lightbulbs, amongst other things, and it would be odd, to say the least, if I were to speak in those terms when describing or explaining what a lightbulb or a ladder or a saw etc. is used for.

The story of a leaf is that it produces chlorophyll and photosynthesizes. — Albert Keirkenhaur

That's just something that it does. It's a biological fact. Why call that a story? That's just odd, and it has connotations which can give the wrong impression. The Adventures of Pinocchio is a story.

...part of me is saying that this ''obviousness'' is exactly what the ego employs to assuage truths that the psyche is developed to avoid — Albert Keirkenhaur

Then what's the counter-argument? Irrational suspicion isn't a good reason to deny or seriously doubt the existence of meaning. But if you just intend to argue against the existence of objective meaning, then you won't find much objection from me.

By existential tangibility I mean something that remains true even through an external disembodied perspective. I.e., ''matter exists'' is found to be true even if we imagine leaving our human perspective of these senses we have no choice but to be familiar with and imagine looking at the world like an invisible spectator. — Albert Keirkenhaur

The problem here is that without the human perspective, there is no one to interpret the meaning of these words, "matter exists". So it's really pointless to discuss whether theses words could be true from a different perspective, because how would you determine what the words would mean from that perspective?

Yeah, it is kind of pretentious. I only considered those things stories because what Pinocchio and the function of leafs or whatever have in common is that they're made of these same shapes your're scanning with your eyes at the moment. The same letters of the same alphabet. What I'm trying to say in a nutshell with that story baloney is that meanings require a recognition of certain shapes and sounds a.k.a. language and the alphabet. Or, simply put, knowing how to read or understand language. Or perhaps only when one begins to understand language does meaning start to exist...?

Meaning is a label we automatically apply to everything we can. It is in essence a value judgment based on how much we believe the things we are labeling is going to affect the things we care about. Labeling objects and actions with meaning is a fundamental part of how we construct the representation of the universe that is generated by the firing of neurons inside our heads. If a person has genetic mutations which prevents them from imparting meaning on the representation of the world they generate, they would be drastically less likely to pass on their DNA, compared with somebody without such mutations. The ability to label things with meaning requires specific genes and is an important part of our fitness from an evolutionary point of view.

We are only able to impart meaning on the representation of the world we generate in our heads as this representation can be distorted when it is evolutionary useful to do so. Beyond the representation of reality we generate in our heads there is absolutely no evidence for meaning and no evidence for a framework by which such a notion could exist as an entity in the actual universe. Indeed, the whole notion of meaning only really works when applied to our representation of the universe. When you try to apply notions of meaning to the actual universe it becomes very obvious very quickly how arbitrary and self-serving the whole construct of meaning actually is. Why would the universe care about any of it, buy what mechanism could it care?

In the actual universe meaning doesn’t exist but in your distorted representation of the universe meaning does exist. So where does this leave us. Those very old maps of the world that showed sea monsters around the edges could be seen as distorted representations of the actual world, analogous to our brain’s distorted representation of the world. The physical object of the map exists within the actual world, the physical paper and paint that make up the representation of the sea monsters all exist. The effect that the see monsters picture has on other things that physically exist such as sailors and ships is real, but the sea monsters themselves, they are simply not an accurate representation of anything that actually exists outside the maps distorted representation. Sea monsters exist on paper but only on paper. In a similar way the idea of meaning exists within our neurons but only within our neurons.
In general, we should just except things for exactly what they are instead of forcing them into ill-defined boxes labeled, does and does not exist. It is quite clear that the notion of meaning is just a self-perpetuating, evolutionary beneficial distortion in our representation of the universe which in no way reflects any innate truth about the world.

A problem with asking does meaning exist is that this leans heavily on the meaning of the word exist. Trying to understand the meaning of the word exist as it relates to the concept of meaning is tricky as it gets a little circular and very dependent on precise definitions which not everybody will agree with. Another problem is whether the concept of meaning can survive if we decide it is just a relativistic concept made up by our brains and is essentially arbitrary with respect to the actual reality of the universe. If meaning can only ever be arbitrary and relativistic then does the concept of meaning lose its meaning?

Although saying things are what they are, contains much more truth, if pushed I would probably say that meaning does exist as if it didn’t I couldn’t communicate with you. This said, I would say that people do very much mistake its true nature.

sorry, kinda long

Remember, the disembodied observer Isn't human. The observer looks at greed and is only capable of noting unconventional behaviors in comparison to ones we'd consider conventional- the un-greedy ones. What I mean by this ''observer'' character is a POV that is separate of human bias and mindset. A perspective as close to objective reality as possibly conceivable — Albert Keirkenhaur

If I may, a perspective as close to objective reality as possibly conceivable would include history, which encompasses the history of people's thoughts and therefore a history of meaning (a genesis of meaning). Moreover, a perspective as close to objective reality as conceivable would have access to people's thoughts, and not just to their actions.

The disembodied observer would therefore be able to see greed, better than ourselves in fact. He would 'read in our hearts'.

Meaning is often weighed against observable and measurable (usually repeatable) real-world circumstance. If a bridge is measured to safely support a 5,000 pound weight- that's generally what it is. For obvious reasons.