Jung is being unusually candid about his own imprecision here, and the candor deserves more attention than the concepts themselves. He is not claiming Logos and Eros as metaphysical realities; he is claiming them as useful intuitive approximations for something that resists sharper formulation — a field of experience, not a taxonomy. The scientific regret he mentions is genuine, but the practical value he names points toward something Hillman would later push much harder: that psychic life generates images, not definitions, and that forcing definitions onto images kills what you were trying to understand.

What is worth pausing on is the word "equate." He is not saying that masculine consciousness *is* Logos, or that the feminine *is* Eros. He is trying to equate — attempting a correspondence that he immediately qualifies as inexact. The attempt keeps the heuristic alive without letting it calcify. That is a discipline most readers skip: they take Logos-masculine and Eros-feminine as doctrine, lose the tentative mood Jung explicitly preserved, and end up with a schema that forecloses the very distinctions — discrimination, relational capacity — it was meant to open. The imprecision was not a failure of rigor. It was the rigor.