One way I try to work through the Trinity is to examine the complementary statements. And here HarleyD is clearly on the money. It's inconceivable tht the Son would disagree with the Father.
On the flipahdeedoodah side, trying to draw and work with the distinction between agreeing "just because" that's what the Father wants as opposed to agreeing "on the merits" is also hard for me. In the first way, can we usefully conjecture about the Father willing something that wasn't good "on the merits"? In the second way, does the Son do anything whatsoever "on His own"? Or does even the Son's perception and assessment of the goodness of anything come in loving assent to the Father?
Then again, I'm not sure that I understand correctly the problem that Anselm is trying to resolve. I always get dizzy when we start looking at the Trinity.
Pinging Kolo for some Oriental wisdom.