Here's a thought that may seem a bit off-topic, having more to do, at first glance, with "paradoxical" logic than with categories. Eleven years ago, for a conference in Bangalore [1], I was trying to present natural-seeming examples of statements P each illustrating another of the four distinct, mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive, and individually indispensable "logical possibilities" thought available for P in the logic of the Hindu catuskoti, or Tetralemma principle: that, given P, one have either P, or ~P, or both P and ~P, or neither P nor ~P. (Note that an Aristotelean would hold that already P and ~P are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, so that the last two are simply false, hence utterly dispensable.) The only illustrations I could come up with back then for a P with "neither P nor ~P" always struck me as somewhat artificial; so that I was greatly heartened, recently, to stumble on a far more natural illustration as outgrowth of a discussant's sardonic comment, concluding his remarks on how contemporary web page design strategies needed to be modified to take into account the fact that *touch* is more and more replacing *mouse cursor and click* as the user interface of choice: "Change is good." Well, he didn't mean it, of course: he said it entirely tongue-in-cheek. But it hit me: that's a superb illustration of a P with "neither P nor ~P": for, in fact (in my view), such "change" is neither good nor not good -- it just is, and may need to be accommodated :-) ). Enjoy! And cheers, -- Fred --- [1] pp. 62-73 of ISBN 81-85931-58-5, www.hindbook.com, 2005 (esp. pp. 70-71); cf. http://www.hindbook.com/images/book_content/Emch.pdf ; or www.hindbook.com/index.php/contributions-to-the-history-of-indian-mathematics [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]