Trying again: A possible test for direct and indirect, is when you are stuck alone on an island with no hope ever of seing another human being. You have a sack of potatoes, a hammer, a bunch of dollar notes, some bitcoins (no internet, ever), the winter is coming and your hope of survival into old age is slim, but present. What has value of those things to you now? When you can not trade, now or in the future, only the direct use value is left.
Your (or mine, for that matter)
subjective valuation of things does depend on the circumstances, the word itself tells it all. In fact, the notion of
marginal utility is based entirely on that, i.e. external conditions, right here right now. In the situation of a lonely island the utility of potatoes will indeed be higher than that of bitcoins (the utility of the latter will evidently be next to nothing). Why are you still trying to put me into your system of thinking? How many times should I repeat that I don't use these notions (direct and indirect use values), they are pretty much meaningless to me (though I understand what you mean). I consider them only confusing things, not clarifying them...
Strictly speaking, this state of matters (a single individual on a desolate island) is beyond the scope of economics as a science altogether, but the notion of subjective valuation (marginal utility) is still fully applicable here
Unable to discuss.