In the conventional perception of things, extreme points are nothing but meaningless details. While in mathematics we are familiar with the significance of an entity’s edges. Moreover, we know that singularities constitute characteristic elements. So for example, the manifolds of Riemann are characterized by the singularities. The importance of the edges, the singularities and the anomalies is decisive. This whole framework naturally has repercussions on topostrategy and offers possibilities of space interpretation. The problem that arises, when we implement this approach in classic and real cases, is that we are under the impression that the points that we are examining have minimal influence. And we reinforce this view via the model of Gauss’s curve, without questioning ourselves and wondering whether the model of Pareto’s distribution, which pays more importance to the edges, wouldn’t it be more efficient. This problem is explained due to the local approach. We are used to examining our islands by bearing in mind the 6 NM, the 10 NM and the 12 NM. Indeed, when the border distances are small we understand the role that boundaries play. In essence we do not realize the value of long distance action due to the restrictions. If the EEZ is so important, it is basically due to the activation of the 200 NM. With this radical change the extreme points acquire a greater significance especially if it is about remote islands. And the reason is simple. A great distance from the neighbors, even a unique point can control π(200)² sq. ΝΜ. In other words the EEZ designates the actual value of an island such as Castelorizo or Gavdos, because it emphasizes on its influence and not merely on its entity. Axiology and not evaluation incorporates action in the framework of existence. In other words it combines the being with the opus and it highlights this philosophical mental schema, that it is the opus that creates the being.