Please, don't get me wrong; I appreciate the conversation and I hope that I am coming across with the respect that I intend. We probably agree, but thanks for asking for my input.
I see that there must be truth; and I see that there must be our interpretation of truth. By truth I mean: something that "is," regardless of perspective.
I could define objectivity as a shared perspective. For example, we can both agree that people have feelings. Subjectivity is a belief that can't be verified by anyone. For example, I feel sort of under the weather today. So both subjectivity and objectivity are perspectives.
By relativism I mean a comparison. Relativism requires at least one point of reference. For example, distance is relative to a starting point. A court verdict is relative to a law (among other things). My feelings today might be relative to how I felt yesterday, or they might be relative to how others appear to be feeling; or they probably are relative to both and many other things. Beliefs are relative to truth; that is, any idea is either truthful or not. Relativism can be either objective or subjective. Actually, a better way to put that would be that both (objectivity and subjectivity) are relative. I believe that this is what you were saying, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Therefore, if meaning is found through relativism, then meaning is relative.
However, truth is not relative, objective, or subjective. There must be a truth about out meaning (even if I happen to believe it or not), right? Granted, every person has a different perspective, but when all has been said and done, there is and must be a truth about everything, too. Right?