><i>But, if everything means something, nothing means anything.</i><p>Stated without argument, and, as far as I can see, simply false. I know this pattern from "if everything is bold, nothing is bold" (typography), where I'd agree with it (if all text is bold no single piece of text can stand out from the rest, which was originally the function of bolding text), I just don't see how it transposes to meaning. If 'meaning' is a perceived relation from 'A' to 'B', then adding another perceived relation from 'C' to 'D' does not change that in any way.<p>Perhaps the author's point is that when only a few things meant something, it was easier to fall into the illusion that this meaning was more than just a relation between things which are meaningless in isolation, that there was some wellspring of meaning that goes above and beyond mere relationships, into a different metaphysical plane of existence, and one could even be in communion with it in ones daily life ("actual fulfilment") by attending to a few common myths or stories or what-have-you. Alas, I would say this is just an illusion and while it might be legitimate to lament the loss of a comfortable state, you would just be fooling yourself by closing your eyes and going back to it at this point.<p>By the way, what is meant by "meaning" anyway? The phrase "X means Y" is clear enough, but then the things the author really seems to want to say hinge on a non-relational use of the word, e.g. "X is meaningful", "there is meaning", "signifiers of meaning", "meaning that is meaningful". I know there's a colloquial use of "meaningful" but AFAICT "X is meaningful" then means little more than "X makes me happy (and less afraid of death)". It's certainly not a unique fault of this article but it would be nice if someone were to define their key terms, for once.