Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> >At any rate, we are debating semantics. I believe you understood my point, 
> and I do get yours.

Yes, I did understand your point, it was well put.  And my point isn't rocket 
science so I assume reasonalble people get it if the don't always appreciate 
the significance.

It IS a matter of semantics.  I am using the term "value" as "function" while 
you are using it more in the sense of "estimation".

First as to the matter of being allergic to potatoes, in the microcosm of our 
individual homesteads, I would draw this distincion.  If you are allergic to 
potatoes, they NEVER have a function for you (and you probably do not esteem 
them either).  Whereas on my homestead where I am not allergic to potatoes, 
they ALWAYS have a function.  I would, for example, never entertain the 
notion of 
raising castor beans for food because they are poisonous.  Ignoring the rest 
of the world for the moment, on a farmstead where the person was allergic to 
them, potatoes are the same as castor beans, they have no function as food.

I would contrast that with the concept that I take it you are addressing and 
that is that we all esteem things differently.  But then are we not just 
modifying my objection about agreed upon value by society as a whole by 
reducing it 
to pretty much the same thing with an audience of one??   I might highly 
esteem asparagus (that it: has a high value for me) but it would not alter 
the 
fact that on a farmstead full of physical work, I cannot subsist on a mostly 
asparagus diet.  Even if high estimation is there, high function might not 
be.  

Put under the scrutiny of function vs estimation, gold has very limited and 
very specialized function.  Potatoes have very high function but CAN have 
very 
limited estimation.

Esteem comes and goes both societally and individually and can change on a 
whim.  Function is far less subject to change and only changes when the 
reality 
of our circumstances changes.


James