I think you'll find that rationally speaking, that is precisely how it HAS to be defined. If it's not objective and extrinsic, then some exceedingly unfortunate logical corollaries ensue, that render the whole idea incoherent.
For instance, then the "meaning" in question is just as variable as the number of people on earth -- and worse, on the moods they can have at a particular minute, or the beliefs they can choose at a particular time. It then is incapable of a key AE virtue, namely "authenticity": for being "authentic" to no locatable and stable point or state at all, it can never be said NOT to be "authentic" -- nor to be "authentic."
Moreover, since the "meaning" asserted by AE cannot be tied to any objective reality, it fails to be informative of anything but the immediate internal preferences of the individual. No one can owe it to another person to honour or admire their "meaning," or to agree that they have achieved that "meaning": for it cannot be located -- not even by the person imagining it, for he or she may change his or her mind in the next second.
So any such definition of meaning is beyond ephemeral. It's the ghost of a ghost. It's nothing.
And Nihilism then ensues. But solipsism first -- the belief that one one's own "meaning" counts -- then Nihilism, but not until after one discovers that that "meaning" one was treating as so important and "authentic" simply evaporates on its own inconsistencies.
I do not recall the quotation to which you refer. If you floated it, I think perhaps I never saw it. But I know Rorty. Are you a Pragmatist or an Existentialist, then?I quoted and discussed Richard Rorty on this matter in another thread, but I don't think (I could be wrong) that you ever responded to that post.