Meaning?

That he is right. I also agree with the criticism.

The Rabbi is saying that he retracted what he wrote in that article. (That was apparently during his Haredi period, when he still functioned occasionally— as I also saw from another article of his from that period— as a mouthpiece (and I hope not an uncritical absorber) of common Haredi slogans, like any ordinary Haredi.)

But I actually do generally believe in the principle. I don't remember the article anymore—but I do believe (and somewhat know; this has worked for me more than once, though the insights were still raw) that the words of the Talmud have several layers of meaning (midrashic interpretation, but real), and that the words of the Amoraim contain much more than what they themselves intended to say, even though indeed no statement departs, chronistically, from its plain meaning and the simple intent of the one who said it.

Well, that's trivial. Obviously, if you think, you'll find additional things. Still, the thesis about providence seems dubious to me. Though on the methodological level there is room to relate to the version that has come down to us, at least so long as it has not been proven erroneous.

But from your words it seems that you retracted not because of the above criticism, but only because your outlook on providence changed (and that does not mean that the outlook of the halakhic decisors from whom you brought proofs at the time does not accord with your former view of providence).

The aspect of providence in relation to the text is a good example both of the Rabbi's current justified criticism of his former self and of the missing of the truth that actually was there. This aspect just needs to be formulated in a less childish way. The assumption that nothing just happens for no reason, and especially if a certain text has been studied for more than 1,500 years and also has an internal logic of its own—we will not easily abandon a Jewish law that was based on it and that we practiced accordingly because of a textual witness discovered only recently. That is the canonization the Rabbi is talking about. I remember that already back then, in 2002, the wording about providence and so on grated on me, but since I was thinking about fairly similar things myself at the time, I couldn't help agreeing.

Generally speaking, what is happening here is quite similar to the binding force of customs (even though that stems from the people's acceptance of the custom—but here too one can speak of the people's acceptance of the text, because already then one could have said there was an error in the version, as happens not infrequently among commentators on texts like Midrash Rabbah, for example). There is something here akin to evolution: if things endure for a long time, that says something about their adaptation to their environment (and here the deeper meaning of the text comes in). On the other hand, just as customs, even ones written in the Mishnah, can be annulled over the generations, so too textual discoveries can carry some weight (which can grow over time) against accepted Jewish law.

Eilon, many of these Jewish laws are not actually practiced.

Indeed, I retracted the mysticism.
From the outset I did not mean to make a claim about the views of halakhic decisors, but only to state my own opinion.