Everything does have meaning, or at least the potential for meaning. Isn't the question more about whether those meanings are subjective and interpretive, or whether they are somehow cohesively designed? And while most people would be more comforted by the second, I can't say that I would agree with them. If a cohesive meaning was somehow already structured into our "reality", if meaning weren't "merely" subjective and interpretive, then that begs the question as to who/what/how that meaning was structured, and more importantly, to what end? Can we assume benevolence? And should we really be so willing and ready to submit our own interpretive apparati to another's? I would be as wary of that as of anyone who tried to assert their interpretive meaning as dominant to others'. The problem with meaning as totally fluid, subjective and interpretive, however, is that at the extreme of this, there isn't any authority to fix meaning (David could address that far better than I). With no way to fix meaning, all meanings become equally valid. This is as frightening a possibility in its own way as the structured meaning discussed above. So, we get into collective meaning making, where meanings are fixed through multiple people agreeing on their subjective experiences. But as we can see in the United States today, this has a whole host of problems all its own.

So, just some stuff to chew on. Yes, there are multiple meanings and potentials for meaning in everything. It is the how and why of it that fascinate me.

Alyc