It doesn’t automatically gain more truth the more abstracted it is, it’s just able to be more true with more abstraction.
Consider the history of science, e.g. Newtonian physics has a great deal of truth to it, but relativity is more true. Truth is a scale. Only at the highest level of abstraction does truth become the most absolute it can be: binary True (or False/indetermined). But as you bring that level of abstraction back down to reality the lines begin to blur, it gets closer to reality and actual useful applicability but of course you can’t be as precise and definite.
“There is existence” is implied in every possible truth - even the attempted denial of existence is predicated on existence in order for such a denial to exist, be made, and apply. “There is a cat on the mat” depends a great deal on definitions: “cat” presupposes a classification that doesn’t have exact bounds - there is no exact archetype of “cat”, just a set of particulars that all vary - despite being grouped together under a single term. How much of a cat is bacteria? What about oxygen that goes in and out of the cat’s blood stream, and hormones that it gives off and receives? Since a cat is never the exact same cat twice, is it so precisely always a cat - or does this also rely on the definition of cat being very loose and imprecise? Maybe the mat is more of a rug? The electromagnetic forces in both the cat and mat repel the two meaning that at different levels of magnification, it becomes more or less the case that the cat is on space and space is on the mat…
You see how there is far more reliance on vagueness in a more concrete and useful observation such as “there is a cat on the mat”? It is this abstraction of “cat” that allows something so distinctly truthful sounding, but just because such an abstraction can be made, doesn’t mean it is necessary or it has to be one way rather than another. Do we assume the senses are available to us bring more truth than perhaps another set? Does our expected level of magnification yield a more true view? At a smaller level, a cat wouldn’t even be distinguishable, just atoms and molecules, and at a higher level, any cat would likewise be too small to be distinguishable as being on any mat. Which is more true, and is there a different perspective that sufficiently falsifies altogether what seems to be so clearly true from our perspective - there is no cat on the mat after all?
I’m sure you get the point. I think you can therefore safely say that “there is existence” is more true than “there is a cat on the mat”. You could also call the former more general, but I am aiming to confront the notion of truth rather than avoid and step around it.
As mentioned in my previous post, it is for this reason that I am resorting to unconventionally distinguishing in the way that I am. Otherwise the nature of truth runs into problems and continues to present itself as philosophically problematic. It’s only because of the fact that it’s not an easy task to get to the bottom of problems with truth, and people are used to thinking of truth differently to how I am proposing that there is any difficulty in communicating my solution. I was primarily steering clear of conventional terminology e.g. “analytic” because it already carries with it an established set of associations and understandings. I am fine not using such terms at all, though I do think analytic truths do serve as a good example of truths that have been abstracted so far from reality that they can be formed without verification with the world. They are able to have this binary absolute truth/falsity to them because of this extreme distance.