This section is from the "A Manual Of Psychology" book, by G. F. Stout. Also available from Amazon: Manual of Psychology.
§ 3. Deliberation. — Very often, however, the thought of the Self does not at once give rise to a decision, positive or negative, but only to arrest of action, so as to give time for deliberation. It may be that the way in which this or that line of conduct, if realised, would affect the Self as a whole, past, present, future, and ideal, can only be brought before consciousness with sufficient fulness to determine action by a more or less prolonged train of thought. When this is so, the concept of the Self as a whole will not directly tend to reinforce or suppress a desire; it will rather tend to postponement of action, until the concept of Self and of the action and its consequences are developed in such detail in relation to each other that a decision becomes possible. In this way arises Deliberation. The alternatives before the mind in deliberating may be simply doing a thing or leaving it undone; or they may include two or more definite and incompatible lines of action. In principle, there is no essential difference between the two cases. When two or more definite lines of action are considered, each of them has to be brought into relation with the general concept of * Self, and from this point of view they have to be compared with each other.
The general point of view in deliberation may be described as follows. A certain line of action being suggested as possible, I contemplate myself as I shall be if I put it in execution, so as to make it part of my actual lifehistory, and on the other hand I contemplate myself as I shall be if I leave it undone. I follow out this representation of a hypothetical Self in more or less detail until that turningpoint in the process which is called Voluntary Decision emerges.
In the more developed forms of deliberation there is a kind of mental seesaw. Now one alternative, and now another, comes predominantly before consciousness, and the mind is variously attracted and repelled by each in turn. The desires and aversions which arise in this way are called Motives. Hence the process of deliberation is often called a Conflict of Motives. Motives are not mere impulses. They come before consciousness as reasons why I should act in this or that way. They are not independent forces fighting out a battle among themselves, while the Ego remains a mere spectator. On the contrary, the motives are motives only in so far as they arise from the nature of the Self, and presuppose the conception of the Self as a determining factor. From this it follows that the recognised reasons for a decision can never constitute the entire cause of decision. Behind them there always lies the Self as a whole, and what this involves can never be completely analysed or stated in the form of definite reasons or special motives.
While the process of deliberation is going on, the motives are motives for deciding: when the decision is made, the triumphant motives become motives for action. Or, to put the case in another way, while the process of deliberation is going on, the competing desires are regarded as possible motives for action: when the decision is formed, they become actual motives for action.
 
Continue to: