… about what to contribute to the ongoing discussion of [Ken Wilber](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber)’s [Wyatt Earp post](http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/46) and I was just reading [Tom’s](http://zenunbound.com/blogmandu.html) [post](http://zenunbound.com/2006/06/rattlesnake-post-was-not-test.html) about [his own feather-ruffling post on Zaadz](http://zenunbound.com/2006/05/is-zaadz-den-of-rattlesnakes.html) and a thought arose that I thought might be worth contributing.
In [the follow-up](http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/48) to a first post which offended and delighted people in various proportions, Wilber explains his use of provocation:
>So in your own responses, you can look to whether it was with compassion or idiot compassion, whether second-tier depth or first-tier flatland—what was your own response? How many perspectives can you include? It’s a simple challenge. A challenge to: what altitude are you, what are your own levels and lines, and most of all, what are your shadow elements? So, if I may respectfully suggest, look at your response to that first blog and ask yourself those questions.
Which some people have [tried to brand a cult loyalty test](http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=245). But here’s what arose in me when pondering this:
*Every* blog post is a challenge to examine your cognitive development, your lines of development and most especially your Shadow. Every post we read, every post we write.
When we blog we are Mind reading and Heart writing and we are monkey-chattering.