No. You don't get to play weenie semantic games like some first year philosophy major, and try to deflect. Express your truth in words, math, or colored beads. It doesn't matter. You still have to build the box within which you are defining your "truth", because - as I demonstrated - there is no empirical truth which exists in some fictional pure state. "Truth" is a measurement against something else, not a base principle. Even mathematicians begin with, "assume an infinite plane" before they move on to their mathematical proof. Truth is a point defined within a box of context. Want proof? Find a single base truth that is true in every context. You can't. It's just that simple.
I'm going to play weenie semantic games with you like a one-time logician because I think you're understating your case by avoiding them. P or not-P. Tautologies are true no matter what, so there surely are truths that are true in every context, they're just useless by virtue of being true in every context. They say nothing about everything, which is the only thing that can be said about everything.Want proof? Find a single base truth that is true in every context. You can't. It's just that simple.
You said, "For the purposes of this discussion 'truth' means everything objective." Truth is not an empirical thing. Anything "true" can be wrong when the context changes. "This is blue." "Donald Trump is an idiot." "1 + 1 = 2" "Jupiter is bigger than Earth." Every one of these "truths" can be proved right or wrong within a specific contexts. So when you "search for truth", you need to define the context within which this truth exists. And we are back at the start of our conversation again... there are no empirical truths, so your search for truth must be the search for the truth within a specific context. You can't just say "this is true" and "this is false" because you deem it thus. (Well... I guess you can, but then you would have to be the only person in your universe.)
I suspect we are actually agreeing but using different words. You are talking about sentences whereas I am talking about propositions. Using your language: There are no absolute truths (i.e true sentences) because the proposition that each sentence maps to has to be defined from context. However, I meant: There are absolute truths (i.e true propositions) because the truth value of at least some propositions are unchanging (at least from a certain point on) and not dependant on context. . The context is usually known by the people participating in or watching the conversation so there's no need to worry there.