I’m hoping this is appropriate to the question you asked:

Following on from the idea that the problem of existence is more elemental and quite different from the problem of ‘life’, it becomes a problem of making sure that the distinction between ‘existence’ and ‘life’ is, at least to begin with, accurate and meaningful.

So what is ‘my life’ ? Relative to everything going on in my apperception of experience – meaning my perception of experience as a whole – ‘my life’ is the bit that relates to ‘me’ making my way through experience. It involves my sense of myself interacting with experience to further what I believe to be my goals. But I also know that there are other things going on in experience which aren’t necessarily to do with ‘me’ and ‘my life’ (at least not directly), so it makes sense for me to distinguish, in experiencing, between ‘my life’ and ‘everything else going on’. Of course the problem for the ego is that it can misjudge boundaries between ‘me’ and ‘not me’.

If I ask ‘what is the meaning of my life ?’ I would be thinking in terms of something like a philosophical account of myself – composed of ideas and experiences - that I can turn to when the threat of meaninglessness approaches, and depending how ‘deep’ my account extends, it may – given the instance in question – be able to do the trick. And if it fails, I can always try and improve on it.

But the real problem with any meaning I may hold on to, or call up for comfort and support, is that it is always liable to be overwritten by something else, either a new experience, or a new thought, or new set of ideas. It can never achieve anything more than a kind of unsteady probability.

Which brings us on to the question of ‘existence’ – meaning a reflexive consciouness of experience as a whole – and trying to resolve the conundrum which it presents – ie what is it? And why is it ?- rather than trying to find a ‘meaning in life’, which looks to be a hopless task.