JLatimer, as far as I understand, willing is a natural operation, but as you say, it belongs to the hypostasis who is willing, just as eating is a natural operation which belongs to the hypostasis who is eating.
We wish to insist that because the one who acts is one therefore the energy and will is one by union
because it belongs to and expresses one subject who operates and wills and acts in a diverse manner and with a diverse energy.
Two human subjects might co-operate and produce one human work, but we are considering one divine subject who is both God and man and does not do a bit of divine action here, then a bit of human action here, but being incarnate is always divinely acting in both his humanity and his divinity at the same time and in complete union together.
We would not say that our two legs co-operate with each other to enable us to walk, although clearly both participate entirely according to their nature in the process of walking. Rather we understand that there is one agent, one subject of walking, who acts and operates in each leg together by union, preserving both the natural property of left-legness and the natural property of right-legness. But we would not normally speak of two activities engaged in walking, rather we would say that the person and hypostasis is walking, attributing the activity, energy and will to the one person and hypostasis.
Of course 'en theoria' (which does not mean in theory at all, but by careful contemplation) we see that there is a natural energy and activity of each leg, according to the natural property of left-legness and right-legness, but then we rise up again to consider the activity of walking and we see the legs acting as one, without ceasing to be perfectly left and right, completely different, yet also entirely and perfectly united into one activity and energy and will of walking.
Well I see it a lot like that.
Does that work for anyone as a rough analogy?
JL, I'm now looking for Joe Sachs and Aristotle. It might be helpful for us to see if we can describe Christ from scratch without using technical terms, but also covering all the controversial areas?