Thinking further, as a thought experiment, consider a ball on a diagram:
Now without really saying much, you have probably already considered the red ball is sitting on a platform or "ramp" of some sort represented by the black line, and you have probably guessed what happens. It moves down and somewhat to the right, rolling along the contour of the black line until it hits the 'V' shaped section at the bottom, at which it stops (maybe there's a bounce involved, but it's not important for this thought experiment). It probably didn't take much thought to get there.
But how/why do you know this will happen? What if the ball actually rolls "uphill"?
To be sure, the latter could happen if our assumptions about this drawing's unspecified surrounding environment are wrong, but the point is you are employing some very simple intuitions about surfaces, creases, gravity, etc. in your thought process. None of this is remarkable.
I would say that the world of "meaning" has its own idiomatic system of classification, and Jung attempted to capture that basic concept with the idea of the "archetype." Stories and books and, well, basically every form of humanistic art out there is awash in them. The very concept that there could be a meta-concept about idiomatic concepts is in itself an "archetype." None of this should be particularly remarkable.
What is important to note is that such systems of "meaning" have basis in Reality, and as such, it is possible for us humans to judge and observe them accurately, or inaccurately. And it is the latter I believe that frightens so many of us and drives us to distill and clarify it with whatever means necessary--the contemporary tool being Logic, Statistics or whatever else may have you (or whatever aliases such as "scientific" or "rational" thought may stand in for these mechanistic-cause-oriented methods of judgment).
The fact is, I don't think we have explored this sufficiently to consider our intuitions about it as advanced as we have with typical Newtonian physics, for example. Consider that someone with a faulty understanding of physics may have looked at the above drawing and thought the ball was just following the line, going down and then up the right-hand spar. Then again, the simplicity of this drawing lends itself to enough ambiguity that such an interpretation could be accurate. But generally speaking I think that interpretation would be false, since that drawing looks like a ball on a ramp to me with the drawing being oriented in vertical space. When the information presented is so ambiguous, who's to say either interpretation is wrong? Such a dilemma happens in the world of "meaning" all the time, I would say.
Likewise, to extend a hint of my own atheistic alignment to religion, I feel there is no point in trusting any of the past systems of meaningful, spiritual or religious pedagogy in earnest because I can't help but imagine how unimaginably inaccurate some of it is. That's not to say all of it is wrong, it's just that one has a LOT of work to do in filtering what's Reality from naive BS from it all.
We humans have proved with science that we have a potential to understand the world better, and expand the horizons of our understanding and thought. This world of "meaning" is another frontier that we need to confront with excellence and prove that we can know it better than our ancestors ever hoped to.