Good comment. I'm going to piggyback on your post to throw out another, overlapping idea in hopes of getting other people's impression on it. Namely, I'd like to further analyze the notion of absolute meaninglessness insofar as the idea is understood under the umbrella of existentialist thought. But before doing so, I'd also like to make the disclaimer that I too have a propensity towards existentialism in the term's broadest sense (i.e. I deeply respect many of the ideas put forth by Camus, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Dostoyevsky, though slightly less so Sartre) and am no expert in the field, even though I studied philosophy at university. Anyway, back to the discussion...

You stated:

I find the idea of absolutely meaningless life rather liberating (as I am free to make my own meaning)...

This idea that life is absolutely meaningless--one which is to my knowledge popularly upheld in existentialist discourse, especially existential nihilism--often leaves me feeling a bit conflicted at times. My concern is with the way philosophers and practitioners tend to apply the term "meaninglessness". I'm fine with accepting the belief that there is no intrinsic, human-centric value in the world that gives inherent worth and purpose to our existence, such as a closer relationship to Truth that somehow imbues humans with an inherent superiority to that of any other species. I also agree that our existence--as well as the existence of everything else in the universe--is without absolute meaning, i.e. that unfathomable chance has led to our existence rather than providence or intelligent design or something akin to that. This I agree with. However, to me, this seems different that saying that life is absolutely meaningless. Now, bear with me, because I am not trying to splice words or point about OPs incorrect grammar (I think he has properly expressed a widespread opinion on the matter); I'm taking a stand against nihilism to that extent that nihilists claim that individuals are justified in acting according to their own moral dictates precisely because they acknowledge the non-existence of any supra-human

In other words, the notion of an absolute lack of meaning seems, in a sense, in compatible with humanity's actual lived experience. By this I mean that, for all practical purposes, humans have never lived in a state of consciousness that was indeed devoid of value or meaning. It isn't that I find the idea disconcerting or cause for great alarm in a moral and metaphysical sense; after all, even if this axiom were understood the be irrefutable,