You've betrayed your worldview with the words "There are no truths. There are no maxims". If you do actually believe that about existence, then we can go no further in this discussion. You are now trying to pull me into your framework of subjective relativism, when a basic education/reading in logic and philosophical reasoning would show you the internal incoherence of the claim "there are no truths", and all the rationales that follow it. Your paragraph stating that the individual's interpretation is the ultimate definition of a text also reinforces your buy-in to this philosophy.
You left the "Fundamentally: for purposes of debate, there are no truths" from kleinbl00's post. What it means is that when you want to have a discussion/debate in a classical sense, you can't have assumed truths. You have to argue them. Present facts and reasoning without silent assumptions. Why? Because opinions have no place in a debate. It's weird, bordering on being counter-intuitive, but here's the thing: I (mostly) disagree with you, but if I were to argue in your place I could feasibly hold my ground without quote-mining, (implied?) Camus' statement on truths or invoking Russel's dichotomy in all but name.
And boy, most people around here will tell you that I'm really, really bad at debating.