I ascribe to the same attitude; I use that when someone tries to
   attack my reasoning.* When they do, I attack the basis for their
   reasoning, usually attacking "law of excluded middle" when they
   try to throw either/or-sies at me. [or if it's a
   atheism/religious debate (I'm both and neither; they're both
   platonic to me generally) - I give a short-history-of-Atheism or
   some stuff about biological flaws of any kind of pure reason
   being even biologically possible (it doesn't seem to be).* That
   stops them dead] Math still can't tell me when I'm going to
   start destroying the structure on a whim from within, except
   perhaps some kind of vague probability that can't even tell me
   where the moon will be exactly in a few months :P [I still can't
   believe we haven't figured that one out entirely] Timelessness;
   yes, I also allow for some unmoving of mind; perhaps a state of
   ultimate constraint and/or ultimate freedom; a plate balanced
   for a moment on a nearly infinitely small needle with a greater
   perspective of things as-they-are at that moment than is
   normally possible. Or a point of self-awareness where one
   experiences the flow of things without being moved by it yet
   also moving with it.* Stace's description of the mystical
   experience via a point where categorization isn't possible
   during the experience but only afterwords in an odd sounding way
   really hit the nail on the head for me with that. Quale; I think
   that's going to be something our current investigative systems
   will eventually have to face; the nature of experience via
   experience... or viewing subjective on subjective terms rather
   than objectifying it. Been working on nature-of-consciousness
   stuff for about a year and a half now. So many unexpected
   directions; had no idea.
   [1][IMG]

References

   Visible links
   1. https://plus.google.com/u/0/116220525110856958463