The two main dialectical (expressed as two sides in contrast and conversation with each other) paradigms in philosophy at the metaphysical (onto-epistemological) level have for a long time been: being vs. becoming, and materialism vs. idealism. One great thing about the VO idea of self-valuing is that it jumps over both of these paradigms. It's like these paradigms break down completely under the assertions of VO. I want to create an analogy here to how edified logic breaks down typical paradoxes in philosophy of logic:
The Cretan paradox of speaking "All Cretans are liars" when one is a Cretan oneself. This is supposed to produce a paradox because if one is oneself a Cretan and proclaims honestly that all Cretans are liars then one has spoken a truth, thus refuting the original claim that is spoken, so that it becomes impossible to express the claim without refuting it. This is clearly among the more stupid things produced by philosophy. I only mention it because of how the supposed paradox literally dissolves when we push just a little deeper into it: what does "are liars" mean, that all Cretans never always only speak the truth, or that all Cretans are always lying? The latter of course is required for the paradox to even make sense, and yet as we move to this latter position on the meaning of "are liars" in equal measure the situation becomes literally meaningless: all Cretans are always lying? Everything spoken is a lie, no non-lies are ever spoken? Everything is supposedly a lie therefore nothing truthful can be said-- this is nonsense, more importantly it isn't a paradox at all, it is just a stupid way of constructing a thought experiment. If someone always lies then they cannot tell a truth, but then by some magic you say "A ha but here they may have said a truth!" you're just refuting your own premise that the person always lies. It's unfortunate that this sort of thing persists as "philosophy".
"A is never B
But some thing here of A looks like a B (because I subtly refuted my own principle of A in my formation of B)! Paradox!"
So anyway, just as the paradox dissolves once we really examine what is meant by the terms in the premises, namely the paradox only exists because of a deliberately vague use of concepts, I think the typical dialectical paradigms in philosophy also dissolve once VO proposes its core idea of self-valuing. Self-valuing doesn't claim to know what a self is or what beings are, they could be "material" or they could be "ideal", they could be "being" or they could be "becoming" but in any case whatever they are they are always a self-valuing, something which holds itself in existence precisely because it "values" itself as itself, namely interprets interactions in such a way that it always holds itself as the standard for those interactions. The idea is deeper than the typical philosophical categories here; "what being really is" is suspended because we don't really care about that right now, we say that no matter whatever we might say being is, we already know that it is self-valuing. Although VO does not go the "extra" step and claim that being is self-valuing and nothing besides which is a huge strength on the part of VO, as I see it. The false metaphysical leap is avoided, suspension of judgment is imposed just so that a core truth can reign free regardless of however anyone wants to describe or define "what beings really are". We may not know what they are, but by strict logic we can know that regardless of what they are, they self-value. This is one reason why self-valuing is superior to N's will to power, because N makes that metaphysical leap when he doesn't need to (when it isn't justified to do so).