The crux of it is – why should I yield to your language games? Here you have entered a ground where the use of grammar as exact logic can simply not apply. The axiom “self-valuing / valuing other in terms of self-value” dictates your tenacity, but at the same time prevents it to be effective, due to its particular premises being antithetical to value-ontology.
Value predicates all truth/falseness/ appearance/appearing, because all these terms require a standard to which they (are)(do).
Such a standard is called a value.
How is such a value established?
By self-valuing
of a subject.
The subject is thereby defined.
This subject wills to power. Thereby is the world defined.
The world is will to power, but the subjects, of which the world is composed, are self-valuing and valuing the other/world in terms of this self-value.
The will to power as primary assumes a subjectivity which is not given by our understanding of science.
Self-valuing, the activity of an entity (force / form) to relate to other entities while still remaining a structural integrity, explains this subjectivity. It explains it as well as is possible to a consciousness – it explains it in terms of itself.
As all good definitions, this one is circular if we understand the term well. But its application is not circular, on the contrary, it forms an arrow where there was only chaos. The application of ‘merely’ the will to power as if this is the ground of all givens, leads to a circularity of action and reaction, push, counterpush. It is predictable, and only by the ‘magical’ quality of dialectic does it acquire meaning, substance. This quality is rooted in the existence of the subjects and his inherent will to advance over decay and to manipulate appearances to this end.
The entire given of relating, whether electrical, chemical, physical, psychological or logical, may or may not appear as will to power, but always appears as value-interaction.