If the attempt to understand “self-valuing” necessarily leads to its genealogy, then it rests on that.
So Pezer is wrong, and self-valuing is not subordinate to valuing, but the other way 'round?
But it amounts to nothing. Nothing is literally no thing, so nothingness—the reification of nothing—is literally no-thingness.
As I said, pure flux would be nothing. But your flux is no pure flux, it’s only relatively fluxious.
Where is there “otherness” in will acting on will?
There is no subject of will to power. The will to power is encroaching subjects, or force moving outward from centers. The phrase “encroaching units” is not an answer to the question “who wants power?” or “who feels pleasure?”
And how can anything posit itself? I’ve asked this question, in different forms, multiple times already, but this suggestion of absurdity has been conveniently ignored.
“Itself” already refers to its being, so this is circular, absurd.
Well, I don’t care whether it’s logically prior or only logically more fundamental; all I care about is whether it’s logical.
I would agree if you said that valuing presupposes a value-standard. What I disagree with is the notion of “positing itself as a value-standard”, or “self-valuing”—as that is circular, absurd.
And what is “flat time-space”?