Meaning seems to be a relative term. It's quite possible that you could attach a whole lot of emotional value to a seemingly mundane thing as viewed by somebody else. It might be of value to you and a few people close to you, but at the same time, there could be a good number of people who would attach no particular value to it.

Therefore it seems like you could make good meaning out of a journey that didnt have any pre-determined agenda whatsoever because you are the one who will be analysing it and assigning meanings to it later on. It's going to sound awesome as you did it. On the other hand, if there is an independent 3rd party assigning meanings to your journey, there could be a different interpretation altogether and the meaning might not be where you think it will be.

It's equally meaningful both ways i would argue. That is with or without a destination. A journey without a destination is like how the theory of evolution sees the origin of life. Nature is often projected as the blind watchmaker - without any pre-defined agenda whatsoever. And look at how beautiful it all turns out to be. It's in the eye of the beholder if you will because when you dissect it enough there is no magic. It's very tempting to say that "it had to be that way".

On the other hand, save a few happy accidents or unexpected turns, all human achievements are examples of highly focused journeys with clear cut destinations. You cannot put a price on either. They have their own advantages.

It's interesting to dissect it a little just to see the pros and cons but i really doubt if one can be pitted against the other with any significant advantages. The problem of local maxima as it comes in searching for candidates in a solution space is the prime example of how a pre-defined methodical search fails. Where an adventurous unorthodox search could present you with some pretty interesting results as it didnt know what it was climbing. The former being an example of a journey with a destination and the latter without.