I'm not sure if I've quite followed you but I'm not sure how you take out the subjective.
If we're talking about something that was created for a purpose, then the creator will assign a certain meaning to it. That doesn't entail that it should assign the same meaning to itself or that others should share the same conception of meaning about it.
I have more in mind the idea that the action or expression cannot be separated from the meaning.
If universal laws were not created, for example, we can say that they have effects, but would we equate those effects with meaning?
Well that's a completely different scenario though. The issue I'm talking about is if "natural law" is effectively one and the same as the action and expression of cosmic governor forces.
If we're going to ascribe an objective meaning to something, I think it would entail something along the lines of a thing that instills the same sense of meaning in any conscious being. That they somehow instinctively interpret it and value it in the same way. I think this is unlikely, but as soon as we recognize that different conscious beings will value it in different ways we have left the objective.
But in terms of "objectivity" it doesn't really matter what meaning we (subjectively) assign to the actions and expressions of cosmic governor forces, because unless we understand those actions and forces aright, our assignations simply aren't going to be correct. So in a Christian framework for instance, if Christ absolved the world of sin, both sin and redemption would actually have cosmic meaning. Other "meanings" that we might attach to the situation are likely just to be wrong, therefore one wonders the point in attaching them?
I think that meaning entails being conscious of the thing because if one is ignorant of something then it is difficult to say that they ascribe any value to it.
Well, I use it here in the sense of "X exists for a purpose" where X is the universe or some very important feature of it, and the purpose is the purpose as exercised by the fullest or deepest power in said universe. Again, I don't see a good case for trying to say that isn't an objective meaning attached to the cosmos. Yes, one can attach whatever subjective meaning one wants if one is not that deepest power...but such attachments don't necessarily correspond to any cosmic reality.
When it comes to creations I don't see how it should be assumed that the meaning that the creator bestows on its creation entails that the creations should automatically adopt the same values.
We might be free not to do so. But the creator's values would be the "values" that govern action in the cosmos, so we would simply be deceiving ourselves. For instance, in the scenario I mentioned above (which I don't actually believe by the way) we could well declare to ourselves that sin doesn't exist and choose to live a life of secular freedom. But since sin does exist at cosmic level, we would soon enough find ourselves with consequences whether we subjectively allocated meaning to such behavior or not. There are "significances" acting which are at cosmic level...therefore they would be an objective meaning.
Just because something has a certain operational imperative, let's call it, doesn't mean that that operational imperative is what gives its life meaning.
But I wonder if the situation can really operate that way. I'm more inclined to believe that we exercise the cosmic meaning because it is impossible for us not to do so.
Put another way, the object of the willed outcome of notional beings might represent a certain meaning for the notional being who willed it. But what reason do we have to assume that other notional beings will ascribe the same sense of meaning to it?
I'm not sure it means anything (pun intended) for characters in a video game, say, to define themselves as not-characters-in-a-video-game, but real flesh and blood people. Again, I would say that they are finally subject to a "cosmos" and their own bespoke beliefs about their situation are likely to have only a very limited relevance in the final analysis...if any relevance at all. But again I would question whether it could even operate that way...whether in fact the characters aren't just always playing the role they were designed for. They are never "outside of the game"?