Are you talking about terms in absolute and relative expression?

If someone hides part of the revenue in his tax return, he is dishonest in his tax return.

He behaves dishonourably, the counter term of honour. Without dishonor, we wouldn't know what honor is. At some point, someone started using a term that had to do with an act or omission. Terms that have to do with actions, such as honour, have to do with their omissions, such as dishonour.

I still cannot follow your basic argument.

I would think that there is no beauty because beauty is a concept. If a concept is present, it is not present forever, but only in a context. Contexts change over time and are therefore not permanent. They are subject to change. So I would argue that the only thing you can nail down is change itself.

Change is. The absence of change would be immutability, permanence. It seems to me that not a single proof of permanence has yet been provided, either in explanatory models of a scientific or religious nature.

This brings me back to our previous dialogue on the concept of "I".

The Buddhists explain the absence of an I by saying that consciousness is like a candle flame. If you light another candle with the burning flame of that candle, is it still the same flame? Where is its essence? In this description consciousness is the flame. But nowhere is it understood that the one flame that lights the other candle is still the same or similar flame.

It's not the best of analogies, but I think it's a pretty good one.