I can only say right now that I disagree.
1.It isnt rational, rather it is hinted in things such as beauty, love etc.
2. It depends on what you mean by one. Struggle, pain and contraries is what gives birth to the things that most experience as meaningful. Except most want to eliminate all three. That is what has given rise to the meaninglessness and zombie-like existence one can observe today.
3. What do you mean objective? What then happens to the subjective?

This "meme" is singular, grand and objective.

Its grandness comes from everything to which it is attached (potentially the entire universe).

This meme: "djmxki" is also, singular, grand and objective depending upon the consensus of the crowd.

Everything that is singular, grand and objective is also reducible, banal and subjective.

When an agent appears with a pitch fork in hand with a coercive moralizing toward whatever the value or truth of meme is, I may do what the average person does, or less likely what a "philosopher" would do when presented with the meme complex.

Our thoughts on this matter are in similar proximity. I would say that the essence of life is we, the mind.

The meaning of life is more about what we at doing and why we are doing it. In this respect, I believe we are all well how evolving by exploring, experimenting and learning. Why? To better understand what or who we are?

If science, biology, is right the single purpose of life is to reproduce - pass the genes. — TheMadFool

That can't be right.

Some people sacrifice their own lives without having first reproduced.

The explanation from sociobiology / evolutionary psychology is that altruistic behavior from one person increases the chances of reproductive success for those close to the altruist who are carrying some of the same genetic material.

Either way, the altruist's own genes are at risk of not being​ passed on to somebody else.

Either way, the altruist's own genes are at risk of not being​ passed on to somebody else. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

One really has to ponder to scientific view of life to find the sleight of hand that is being performed.

There is no altruist. There are the altruistic genes (the flip side of Dawkin's Selfish genes). So science simply anthromorphizes the gene and squeezes some behavior in it. Genes love to multiply. People don't love each other, neurons so, etc, etc, etc.

Science observes some small stuff move and then attributes any and all behavior to the small stuff. Somewhere there always had to be the mind. There is no getting away from it.

There's no objective "purpose of life" in that we have no apparent designer whose will and intent we can appeal to, nor do we come pre-programmed with a set of grand instructions that we must follow.

"Purpose and meaning" requires consciousness/awareness or intention to actually exist. Since we have no designer consciousness to appeal to, the next most relevant consciousness to appeal to becomes our own individual mind.

The purposes of our lives that we set for ourselves are the most "meaningful" purposes that we have access to. Many of us differ in terms of what we think constitutes a worthwhile purpose, and generally we choose purposes which make us happy (in the short or long run, and with open or closed eyes).

Through us the universe has achieved self-awareness. — TheMadFool

But through stars, it has achieved hotness, and through fish it has achieved swimming. To convince a fish, you need an argument that self-awareness is more valuable than swimming.

Through us the universe has achieved self-awareness. — TheMadFool

It must be very disappointed, then, to find it has such a mind.

It must be very disappointed, then, to find it has such a mind. — Ciceronianus the White

He found some meaning to his life. What's the problem? You prefer I AM ROBOT?

One really has to ponder to scientific view of life to find the sleight of hand that is being performed.

There is no altruist. There are the altruistic genes (the flip side of Dawkin's Selfish genes). So science simply anthromorphizes the gene and squeezes some behavior in it. Genes love to multiply. People don't love each other, neurons so, etc, etc, etc.

Science observes some small stuff move and then attributes any and all behavior to the small stuff. Somewhere there always had to be the mind. There is no getting away from it. — Rich

I have heard people going farther than that and saying things like abortion (and probably infanticide) is people ensuring the reproductive success needed to preserve their genes.

I have heard people going farther than that and saying things like abortion (and probably infanticide) is people ensuring the reproductive success needed to preserve their genes. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Specifically the genes are trying desperately to preserve themselves. You can actually hear them huffing and puffing if you listen closely to their little lungs.

1. It has to be ONE
2. It has to be objective
3. It has to be grand — TheMadFool

I doubt that you will ever get anyone to agree on all of these, so it can never be objective.
Unless of course you are willing to accept that the only meaning of life is to live it.

It isnt rational — Beebert

It is.
All beings who're a self-aware are beings who want to know who they are.
Humans are beings who're self-aware
Therefore, we want to know who we are.
The conclusion is made stronger by the fact that we're the only living things (at least on Earth) who have a highly developed ability of rational inquiry. So, that virtually makes humans = the consciousness of the universe.

It depends on what you mean by one — Beebert

The true meaning of life can never be more than one. Like I said we can conceive of life's meaning as roles in a movie - we play our part and exit. However, all these roles, different though they are, must be cohere to tell a single story. If this were not so, the movie, play, novel wouldn't make sense - it'll be chaos.

What do you mean objective? — Beebert

Something is objective to the extent that it's rational and fact-based. My meaning of life - to discover the secrets of the universe - is based on the fact that humans are the only living things with the mental prowess to study the universe. So, doesn't that mean our goals, meaning, etc. should be predicated on this unique faculty?

Everything that is singular, grand and objective is also reducible, banal and subjective. — Nils Loc

What are your reasons for your claim? You've judged but not explicated your evidence. I have.

To better understand what or who we are? — Rich

(Y)

altruistic behavior from one person increases the chances of reproductive success for those close to the altruist who are carrying some of the same genetic material.

Either way, the altruist's own genes are at risk of not being​ passed on to somebody else. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You answered your own question. I think of ALL life, not just humans, and what we see is that reproduction is the prime motivator - flowers, nectar, colorful feathers, pheromones, aggression, etc. Without reproduction life is impossible. So, reproduction is an objective meaning of life. It's a truth. All that it lacks, in human terms, is what I call ''grandness''. That's why I had to look elsewhere.

The purposes of our lives that we set for ourselves are the most "meaningful" purposes that we have access to. Many of us differ in terms of what we think constitutes a worthwhile purpose, and generally we choose purposes which make us happy (in the short or long run, and with open or closed eyes). — VagabondSpectre

That's subjective meaning and so, in my terms, it falis as a meaning of life because each will disagree with the other since the meaning/purpose of each individual isn't based on rationality and facts, rather on personal preferences as when we choose an ice cream flavor.

Take the analogy of the movie. You seem to be saying that each person has his/her own role to play. However, if there's no overarching organization to these roles, the movie, play would be absolute nonsense. What then of subjective meaning? Surely, it too is nonsense.

To convince a fish, you need an argument that self-awareness is more valuable than swimming. — unenlightened

Value is, at least in part, attached to uniqueness and we are unique, being the only rational animal. Imagine a room full of blind people. Each person has his/her own talents but ALL are blind. Now, you walk in and presuming you're sighted, you're then given the responsibility of seeing for the blind people. It's something like that.

It must be very disappointed, then, to find it has such a mind — Ciceronianus the White

It's too soon to judge. Evolution hasn't stopped, has it?

I doubt that you will ever get anyone to agree on all of these, so it can never be objective.
Unless of course you are willing to accept that the only meaning of life is to live it. — Sir2u

I think people will agree to the conditions I set because they're the very reasons why no one has yet found a meaning to life.

The meaning of life is not to live it. It's to discover how to live it. Imagine you're given a gift. The gift by itself has no meaning. It's how you perceive the gift's value that gives meaning.

what we see is that reproduction is the prime motivator - flowers, nectar, colorful feathers, pheromones, aggression, etc. Without reproduction life is impossible — TheMadFool

No, that is what you see. Give it time. You may learn to see more. Not everyone is like you. Be happy with who you are but let other people see life differently.

Take the analogy of the movie. You seem to be saying that each person has his/her own role to play. However, if there's no overarching organization to these roles, the movie, play would be absolute nonsense. What then of subjective meaning? Surely, it too is nonsense — TheMadFool

Each of us is the main character in our own movie, and sometimes life is nonsensical as we haphazardly traipse into each other's lives. But the epic tale of all life on earth is hideously long and follows no compelling arc; the human vignette is far more satisfying...

But the epic tale of all life on earth is hideously long and follows no compelling arc; the human vignette is far more satisfying... — VagabondSpectre

If you're satisfied with it, fine but many aren't. They decry the meaninglessness of life. It leads them down the path of depression, pushing them over the edge into death's embrace. Such men/women seek objective and grand meaning - the meaning of life. How do you deal with such people?

let other people see life differently. — Rich

The problem is many want the meaning of life.

Then they'll figure out what works for them. It's about aware awareness not truth.

It's about aware awareness not truth — Rich

If it's not about truth why the question:
What is the meaning of life?

The question seems to invite only one proposition and propositions are about truth.

Value is, at least in part, attached to uniqueness and we are unique, being the only rational animal. Imagine a room full of blind people. Each person has his/her own talents but ALL are blind. Now, you walk in and presuming you're sighted, you're then given the responsibility of seeing for the blind people. It's something like that. — TheMadFool

Oh, you mean like bats have this unique echo-location sense that we monkeys don't, so the universe must be all about them.

The question relates to providing meaning to life. It is a question relating to an inner feeling one may have. Not everyone poses this question to themselves, but those who do find different answers which tend to change over time.

Oh, you mean like bats have this unique echo-location sense that we monkeys don't, so the universe must be all about them. — unenlightened

You're missing the point (I think deliberately). Bats can't study us but we can study them. Have you seen a book on humans written by bats? The human mind is unique in that respect. We're the only animals with a well developed mind that enables to examine everything in the universe. We hold the magic mirror and we reflect the universe and all its contents on it. No other animal can do what we do.

I'm not saying other animals aren't unique but I am saying that their uniqueness doesn't allow them to examine the world like we can.

Not everyone poses this question to themselves, but those who do find different answers which tend to change over time. — Rich

I agree the meaning of life can change over time but right now, the meaning I described seems to be the best fit.

I agree the meaning of life can change over time but right now, the meaning I described seems to be the best fit. — TheMadFool

Yes, for yourself. As for myself, it does not apply for a variety of reasons.

The human mind is unique in that respect. We're the only animals with a well developed mind that enables to examine everything in the universe. We hold the magic mirror and we reflect the universe and all its contents on it. No other animal can do what we do.

I'm not saying other animals aren't unique but I am saying that their uniqueness doesn't allow them to examine the world like we can. — TheMadFool

The assumption here is that writing books is evolutionary more advanced. Maybe bats are more advanced because they don't need books? Maybe bats actually have a much more evolved awareness?

Yes, for yourself. As for myself, it does not apply for a variety of reasons — Rich

What is your meaning of life then?

Maybe bats are more advanced because they don't need books? — Rich

You mean they're clairvoyant and cognizant of the universe in its entirety? I don't think so.

You're missing the point (I think deliberately). Bats can't study us but we can study them. Have you seen a book on humans written by bats? The human mind is unique in that respect. — TheMadFool

You're missing the point. We're unique, bats, and stars, and fish are unique. What is advanced and what is retarded depends on where one is going; and wherever one is going is the 'meaning' of going that way. You assume that reflecting, being aware, writing books, whatever we do is the meaning and then conclude that this is the meaning. That we are the Crown of Creation is not a new idea, but neither is the idea that we are a terrible mistake. Perhaps it's all about learning to cooperate, and the ants are more advanced than we. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you haven't given any justification.

For me, life is about creative experimentation and learning from this experimentation. A child playing with blocks would be a microcosm of this experience. As I have related elsewhere, this experience is not necessarily lost, t may be persistent characterized as inherited traits or prodigy-like skills.

A bat may simply be more evolved and does not need to share its experiences in the way humans do. We can't know the truth. We can only speculate about our beliefs which is part of the process of exploring, experimenting and learning.

That we are the Crown of Creation is not a new idea, but neither is the idea that we are a terrible mistake. — unenlightened

I know biology, evolution, has no goal per se. That does place us in the same rat race as bacteria or viruses - simply finding a niche in the food chain and trying to survive nature's caprices. This is one way to look at it and it does make sense. However, in this view, we ignore a crucial fact - that we can think. The unique abilities of other animals serve only as a means to survival. Our ability to think goes beyond living for the sake of living. There's no need to know math or science or poetry or music to survive in this world. The examples you give are proof of that. Our capacity for abstract thought places us in a very special position that confers on us a responsibility to take a step beyond the ''survival of the fittest'' principle that seems to dominate other lifeforms. We are animals, no doubt but we are also thinking animals and that gives us a purpose that is much much grander than anything imaginable for, say a bat.

I've heard that bats live in a state of samadhi their entire lives and that some hallucinate their reality by echo location.

Chiropteric ectasy is a grand state of being. Every bat is an individual seldom disabled by the abstractions of an ideal future. Chiropteric meaning by bat consensus is to be found in bat reciprocity, or bat on bat influence in an ecological sense. Whatever happens in the course of bat life, x arising then y arising, conveys bat objectivity.

Since all is one ultimately, there are no bats and no humans, no grandness, no oneness, no objectivity, no no ness, no yes ness. Things neither exist nor not exist, nor neither neither exist nor nor not exist, et cetera.

He found some meaning to his life. What's the problem? You prefer I AM ROBOT? — Rich

There is no problem. I'm convulsed with joy that he's done so. Nonetheless, if we're the mind of the universe, the universe is diminished.

If you're satisfied with it, fine but many aren't. They decry the meaninglessness of life. It leads them down the path of depression, pushing them over the edge into death's embrace. Such men/women seek objective and grand meaning - the meaning of life. How do you deal with such people? — TheMadFool

By "deal with such people" I presume you mean "convince them to be happy without ultimate and objective purpose"...

Seldom do I bother with an attempt, but when I do it's not always so difficult. If my interlocutors care deeply about having a rational and empirically sound view of the universe and the things in it (including ourselves) then I will make strong appeals to the evidence based merits of science, skepticism, and atheism (read: "soft-atheism"; colloquial agnosticism; refraining from belief where there is no evidence or indication). In concert with showing the incredulity of the metaphysically gnostic (read: those claiming knowledge beyond the scope of what physical evidence can show) this approach can be very effective. If a person doesn't care so much about the logical consistency of their beliefs as they do about how it makes them feel (all of us do care how our beliefs make us feel even if to a small degree) then I will paint a picture which emphasizes the value of empathy, joy, and shared experience. Living a long and happy life with few regrets, surrounded by those you love can be a powerful image. Mental, physical, and emotional fulfillment in this temporary life is the best end goal that I can offer. Compared to our greed for eternal paradise and other such grandiose ends, this portrait seems small and humble, and yet it is infinitely more achievable.

The real trick of it is to paint a sufficiently vivid and detailed worldview which then becomes more appealing to them than their own (generally an easy thing to do if they have no pre-existing grand narrative I must compete with). It can require a lot of ground work, especially when to bereave someone of a grand narrative might also bereave them of their moral/value system. Most of the time I prefer to not deal with ideologues driven by grand existential narratives in this way, but if I become seriously committed to doing so, then because so much of their world view might need replacement, the discussion becomes broad and long.

Some people might be happier in the long run with their personal grand narratives, and so long as they cause no harm, why should I rebuke them? (ironically they're still living long happy and love filled lives, so they check my existential boxes; why not let them check their own imaginary boxes too?)...