A relatively daft essay, where the title occurred and I attempted to write to fit the title...
A point has no size but simply marks position, says the definition in my head and as used in lessons. Yet if a point is something sharp, such as the blade on Death’s scythe is sharp, it should be better described as an asymptotic limit, in which case the points defining the edge would be themselves undefined.
I wonder how sharpness is measured: one imagines that a blade or point has a measurable dimension. I don’t mean image sharpness; Google tells me that the measure is the radius of the end; the test machine I found has only two dozen units extant [www.catra.org] and the test standard is ISO 8442-5:2005. Generally sharpness is governed by the angle of the two opposing faces – and then the radius of curvature of the edge matters (and is worth measuring). Needles are measured in gauge (G), an inverted unit , meaning the number gets bigger as the size diminishes. The tube part of a lancet (regular medical) point has the edges at 15º and there is an ‘A’ grade at 12º . A ‘French’ equals 0.01312 inches diameter and is used mostly with catheters. Fine needles are around 31G, 1/100th of an inch. The finest I have found is a 33G at 0.0080 inches, 0.203mm outside diameter and 0.0035inches [0.089mm] inside. Sadly, this is an inch-based unit.
The point, as in “Why are we here?” is an unknown. Apparently many feel the point is to leave your mark, but whether that is on the planet, in history or by some physical damage is not made clear. For some, it is the extension of ones genes: however, given that those with genes worth spreading have small families and are far outweighed by the masses whose genes are sub-median (about half, then) and who have unfettered families, the mathematical law that says things will tend to the norm applies. In general, two high IQ parents produce lesser offspring and two low IQ parents produce higher-rated children – tending to the mean (and IQ is a poor measure, but the one available).
“Where’s the point?” could be the question of a depressive, and it deserves an answer: If the question refers to the point in life then biologists say that the point is to further the gene pool. That covers a brief period in the life of a human and, if the supposition were the whole truth, renders most of each life an utter waste – therefore the issue (both question and progeny) must be rejected as not being the whole. Equally there is little point in a non-productive life and that then begs the question what constitutes one of those. The British government, especially in the Blair years, was desperate to raise the education levels of everyone, not least to lower or disguise the unemployment figures, but also to encourage people to move between careers by cross-training and by having education at all ages. In China it is taken as gospel that one of the primary duties is to educate oneself to the highest possible level; the US is not far different. Education achieves what, though? How do we use it? What education proves useful in advancing the individual, the nation or the race? Do we all study like mad so as to increase the chance that rare individuals develop something grandly new? [Just how many software programmers does the world need? How many genuine mathematicians?] What is it that we are chasing?
Some people chase fame, fortune and happiness, a trio I reckon not to overlap by much. Having tried them all, I recommend the third, though a modicum of the other two can assist. Self-knowledge seems to be a powerful tool in chasing any of these, and those that achieve all three are often pursuing some excellence that appeals internally first, finding a market for their preference that brings the other attributes. Of course, one remains unaware just how many people strive to no similar effect. It would be interesting to measure what constitutes success: I read a book today that said an interesting life is not necessarily a satisfying one; I would claim though that it makes more opportunity for satisfaction than an uninteresting life. A colleague last year proposed the dictum that one should live life to the full, flat out, squeezing as much as possible into every day – for you know not which is your last. As he put it at the time, if you’re not going to do things, why be here? So for him at least, the point of life was to live it.
An economist might argue similarly. The greatest (really? easiest?) benefit each consumer can give is the circulation of wealth; therefore one may argue that we are each beholden to spend and earn as much as we can – to be good little consumers.
I am sure there is more to write, but this is all I did, late one evening, circa 30 Oct 2008
DJS 20081030