I do not believe "truth," inherent meaning, exists as anything but an interaction between an observer and the world. Therefore, I believe truth can only be subjective. There are no inherent meanings, everything is absurd.
I do not understand why 'inherent meaning' should be equivocated with 'truth.' In fact, I do not even know what inherent meaning is supposed to be, nevermind whether or not it exists. However, I do believe quite strongly that 'truth' does exist and that it is, and can only be, objective, i.e. that the truth is universal and applicable to all.
I also do not believe events necessarily happen in a linear, inherently sensical way. I think we tend to edit out whatever doesn't make sense, and so are not creatures very well made to be totally in touch with reality, let alone objective truth.
This sentence seems to contradict your other comments, since here you claim that truth does exist, but question our ability to have knowledge of it. I might agree, though it is dependent on what you mean by 'knowledge.' In any case, your assertions certainly have an objective flavour, purporting to apply universally, without exception, to all. Furthermore, the linearity of events has little with whether or not we can make sense of those events, unless you are suggesting that the term 'nonlinearity' cannot be understood or made sense of?
Your need for objective truth is more a product of your need for the world to make sense than it is a reflection on reality. The world is absurd, and you doubly so.
If you really believe that everything is absurd, thus allowing contradiction, then you have condemned your own argument, and indeed all argument. This debate is disingenuous on your part, since you do not believe in critical argument itself, so we are left in a quagmire of conflicting, but uncomparable assertions.
Though for those who believe in truth, that our beliefs may or may not be in correspondence to the facts, you have provided no criticism, only a string of vague assertions and scepticism.