Conclusion

Immense resources are devoted to achieving "superficial" consensus and none to the manner of building on more fruitful disagreement and bonding -- as suggested by the explorations of mathematics (Using Disagreements for Superordinate Frame Configuration, 1992). The consequence is premature closure on superficial forms of consensus inadequate to the challenges of the times. Whilst offering a degree of immediate satisfaction, these both preclude unsuspected options and constitute a defensive protection from them.

Such premature closure assumes a form of consensus based on constrictive notions of agreement. A healthy civilization would offer scope for a wide variety of perspectives -- beyond what is currently understood as freedom of opinion and mutual tolerance. The everybody-must-agree approach, either by dictatorial imposition or by majority vote, is not the basis for social coherence. Missing, as yet, is any understanding of how to embody the complex dynamics of diversity -- best exemplified by the widespread breakdown of families and communities, and ironically including those promoting consensual worldviews.

The delusional nature of formulated consensus is most tragically evident in the case of so-called "global" initiatives, most notably by the United Nations -- with its marked inability to deliver on earlier promises of "health for all", "jobs for all", "education for all", "justice for all", "housing for all", "food for all", etc, and most currently challenged to fulfil commitments of its Millennium Development Goals. The failure to understand the track record of past inability strongly suggests that optimistic initiatives for the future are effectively "built on sand" with a dangerous "lottery-ticket" mentality (Credibility Crunch engendered by Hope-mongering, 2008). It is of a kind with global dependence on the $600 trillion financial derivatives market with its associated toxic assets. Satisfaction with the "feel-good" consensus characteristic of such strategies is difficult to dissociate from Abraham Lincoln's above-cited remark, perhaps to be appropriately adapted as:

You can feed some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not feed all of the people all of the time.
You can employ some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not employ all of the people all of the time.
You can protect some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not protect all of the people all of the time.
You can educate some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not enducate all of the people all of the time.
You can house some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not house all of the people all of the time.
You can ensure justice for some of the people all of the time, and for all of the people some of the time, but you can not provide it for all of the people all of the time.
You can provide heal care to some of the people all of the time, and to all of the people some of the time, but you can not provide it to all of the people all of the time.

The above argument suggests the possible future emergence of much richer forms and dynamics of relevance to "global consensus". The need for such has been made evident through the financial crisis of 2008-2009, widely cited as a crisis of confidence. Consensus and confidence may then be understood as intimately related, with "confidence" understood -- like "consensus" -- in a very fuzzy and simplistic manner, inadequate to the dependence on it. Of particular interest, as suggested by the dynamics potentially associated with the Möbius strip, is the requisite dynamic of confidence in a global context. This may be variously explored (Varieties of Confidence Essential to Sustainability, 2009; Primary Global Reserve Currency: the Con? Cognitive implications of a prefix for sustainable confidelity, 2011).

Whilst "consensus", as conventionally promoted, may indeed be the ultimate delusion, it is clear that through variously cultivating that delusion people can be motivated to ends of which they are unlikely to be aware. An example is provided by the danger of terrorism, that is repeatedly presented as the ultimate threat to global civilization (Promoting a Singular Global Threat -- Terrorism: strategy of choice for world governance, 2002). As such it engenders a significant level of consensus -- a threat to a degree deliberately manifested. Gideon Rachman argues that the numbers make it clear that the threat of terrorism has been seriously hyped (Declare victory and end the 'global war on terror', Financial Times, 3 May 2011):

In a book published a couple of years ago John Mueller, a US academic, pointed out that the number of Americans killed by terrorists since 1960 is "about the same as the number killed over the same period by accident-causing deer" [Overblown: how politicians and the terrorism industry inflate national security threats, and why we believe them, 2006]. In a report for the Rand Corporation, Brian Jenkins made a similar point: "The average American has about a one in 9,000 chance of dying in an automobile accident and about a one in 18,000 chance of being murdered." However, in the five years after 9/11, and including the people killed there, "an average American had only a one in 500,000 chance of being killed in a terrorist attack".

Whereas, "God" may indeed be a delusion (as conventionally understood), the "extrajudicial regulatory actions" of Gaia in the domain of the world's superpower, merit reflection in a context of faith-based governance (Acts of God vs Acts of al-Qaida: Hurricane Katrina as a message to Bible Belt America? 2005). It might be asked whether there is a correlation to be found between US fatalities from "Acts of God" (tornadoes, floods, etc) and from its extrajudicial and "illegal" operations -- with deaths from both being of the same order over the recent period. With respect to any implicit global consensus, Gaia is increasingly emerging as the global "governor of last resort" (Spontaneous Initiation of Armageddon: a heartfelt response to systemic negligence, 2004). Within any such consensus, it then becomes difficult to distinguish between "freedom fighter", "outlaw", "terrorist", "criminal", and "covert extrajudicial operations". The "retributive justice" of Gaia for the extrajudicial measures against Bradley Manning and Julian Assange will be intriguing to note.

A critical perspective from the USA, presented by Joshua Holland (Five Eye-Opening Facts About Our Bloated Post-9/11 'Defense' Spending, AlterNet, 28 May 2011), highlights the following challenges of "consensus" in relation to Barack Obama's assertion that We do these things because we believe not simply in the rights of nations; we believe in the rights of citizens:

Post-9/11 defense increases equal five times the "Medicare Gap": The amount of money needed to balance the program's finances over its 75-year horizon, is less than 0.3 percent of GDP, approximately one-fifth of the increase in the rate annual defense spending between 2000 and 2011.
Afghanistan costs alone could pay for 15.6 Years of the Head Start Program.
Covering the uninsured: it has been estimated that 45,000 people die every year in the USA from problems associated with lack of coverage. The costs of the Afghanistan conflict alone could cover every uninsured American for 1.7 years.
Closing state budget gaps in the USA: 46 states face budget shortfalls in this fiscal year, totaling $130 billion nationwide.
Iraq, just in 2011: The $50 billion to be spent on the remaining "non-combat troops" would contribute significantly to many urgent remedial projects in the USA

It is then appropriate to question what agendas are effectively camouflaged by this cultivated consensus delusion -- and its analogue in other domains. Cui Bono?

Beyond the currently limited literature on the "epistemology of consensus" is the possibility that any such "consensus" has "terrifying" implications for humanity. This is suggested by the title chosen by Gregory Bateson (Angels Fear: towards an epistemology of the sacred, 1988). The nature of that question is raised separately (Thinking in Terror: refocusing the interreligious challenge from "Thinking after Terror", 2005). The possibility may also be provocatively explored in the light of a hypothetrical cognitive analogue to the mirror test of self-awareness as currently applied to animals -- as it might be applied by extraterrestrials to humans (Self-reflective Embodiment of Transdisciplinary Integration (SETI): the universal criteria of species maturity? 2008).

Fortunately this argument makes the point that we do not have to reach consensus on its relevance. Each can formulate a "Declaration of Universal Independence" (2009). The challenge would seem to be how to balance the potential subtleties of mirroring and self-reflexivity against those of emergent patterns of self-governance (Consciously Self-reflexive Global Initiatives: Renaissance zones, complex adaptive systems, and third order organizations, 2007).

Who is terrified of what -- and why?