"Principle of sufficient reason"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_suffici...

and then discussed :–

The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a definite reason. In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise. It is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz,

If we dont give reasons to 1984 it runs the risk of being not real.

Are you kidding.Is Topix a site worth even reading.On topix people just create fake profile's and insult each other's religion,women culture.There is hardly any moderators their.

I thank you for your thoughtful reply. If I understand you correctly, you are pointing to the progressive ideal apart from its political roots. This would presumably allow one to be as you say – thinking towards advancement and something positive – without committing oneself to any policies or political movements. I just guess I'm a little suspicious about this, because believing in progress and advancement seems to involve a normative view about where people need to be (mentally, spiritually, politically, etc.)

For instance, it seems awfully hard to imagine being 'conservative' without generally being in line with various particular American/Christian moral and political views. Certainly, advancement and positivity would be conceived by conservatives differently. Similarly, it's hard to conceive of the _Progressive_ apart from a reactionary politics, or a national identity politics.

I appreciate what you're saying, but not so sure the word "progressive", in the title of this blog, needs to be defined purely in the context of political movements/historical development, or even if it requires a narrow, explicit and limiting definition.

In the context of this blog, I have always read the word "progressive" to mean an advancement, a moving forward to something positive. Of course, I am only speaking as a visitor/guest on this site, and do not presume to speak for TLH's administrators or to know their intent in choosing the name for the blog. However, I would be very surprised if the "recent political movement" you have referenced was an inspiration for the name.

I would like to thank you for your extremely _journalistic_ report.

This blog, and your posts, always tend to align themselves in the framework of nationhood and reactionary politics. For instance, your Blog's title is "The Langar Hall – Progressive Sikh Blog". What is a _Progressive_ Sikh? What is the difference between a Progressive Sikh and being a Guru ka Sikh? It seems that you think that there is a difference here, and that being a Progressive Sikh adds something important. I ask because being progressive is a historical, and very recent political development.

In the last twenty years, American progressives have defined themselves in reaction to the Evangelical movement and its tangential allegiance to free market economics. However, I am hesitant to bind this recent political movement to the discipleship to the Guru. It seems that the prior arises out of Americans' political tensions, whereas the latter is unexplainable.

–Sincerely, Randip.