Your account is moving, but we need to take care with how we conceptualize things if we're going to have a cooperative society.

This isn't a good way to conceptualize truth.

It's a perfectly fine way to conceptualize the qualia of truth. The feeling that you have, upon saying something, that "this is the case". Perry had his feelings.

But the use of "truth" as a concept is precisely in denying that personal qualia is enough to count. Perry might be giving an honest account of his perspective, but authenticity and honesty don't add up to correspondence with an external state of affairs that basically all observers (and automated systems) can independently evaluate and mutually agree upon.

That's what "truth" is, more deeply. Yes, there are philosophical issues regarding how sure we can be about things, but basically "the 2020 election was stolen" is not true, and it continues to be not true no matter how deeply, honestly, fully, and passionately anyone believes it.

Losing the concept of truth so that it can embrace everyone's heartfelt subjectivity is profoundly dangerous when we have the degree of power that our species has now. We can't afford the immaturity of listening to how we feel over how things are, even if the feelings promise they're totally, totally, right (oh, and by the way, that person who says they feel differently is lying and also evil).

Truth is fundamentally simple. It doesn't require a collective. If it's true that global mean temperature in 2023 was 1.5C higher than the 1850-1920 average, nobody needs to agree or even know for the consequences to play out worldwide. What requires a collective is if we want to share it with each other and agree (mostly a matter of language).

I acknowledge that both forms of truth are in wide usage. "Tell the truth" cannot be an injunction to make one's speech accord with actual reality because we don't always know actual reality with sufficient fidelity to speak it. So it means only, "Don't deceive; tell things how they appear to you."

But I suggest that you, and your readers, avoid the urge to solve the very real conundrum that honest perspectives of different people can be in conflict in extremely important areas of one's life by even linguistically abandoning the idea of an objective account ("Perry's truth").

It's important to understand that people's perspectives matter and that certain things that are extremely important are nonetheless largely matter of agreement and convention, and people can disagree without any obvious way to resolve the disagreement.

But in cases where that isn't true--where true and false actually are good models of the world--we need to be mature enough to face how things are. We can't allow that to get lost.