Eros

1. Etymology

Eros, in Greek mythology the personification of love and a cosmogonic force of nature; psychologically, the function of relationship. Related: anima; animus; logos; mother-complex.

2. Plain summary

Eros is relatedness—connective quality rather than Logos’s discrimination and cognition. Jung often paired woman’s consciousness with Eros and man’s with Logos, while also allowing both principles within one person of either sex. Samuels stresses the formulation is intuitive, hard to prove, and not to be collapsed into “feeling.”

Eros is a questionable fellow: one side primordial animal nature, the other highest spirit—thriving only when spirit and instinct are in right harmony. Where love reigns there is no will to power, and where power is paramount love is lacking—each the shadow of the other. An unconscious Eros expresses itself as will to power.

Examples (exhaustive house list for this Index lemma — common Eros motifs named across Jung’s essays and standard Jungian lexica; not a claim that Jung’s CW contains only these):
psychic relatedness; cosmogonic love; connective vs Logos discrimination; woman/man typological pairing (co-existence either sex); not = feeling; spirit–instinct harmony; vs will to power; unconscious Eros → power; anima / animus / logos neighborhood.

3. Academic elucidation

In analytical psychology Eros is relatedness-principle—Syzygy / Two Essays / Mother Archetype territory. Descent Press keeps Sharp and Samuels in §4. §5 holds sample CW stamps at CW 9ii ¶29; CW 7 ¶¶32, 78. Prefer CW 7 / 9i / 9ii.

4. Lexicon

Sharp (1991)

Eros. In Greek mythology, the personification of love, a cosmogonic force of nature; psychologically, the function of relationship. … Woman’s consciousness is characterized more by the connective quality of Eros than by the discrimination and cognition associated with Logos. … Eros is a questionable fellow… He belongs on one side to man’s primordial animal nature… On the other side he is related to the highest forms of the spirit. … Where love reigns, there is no will to power… An unconscious Eros always expresses itself as will to power.

(Sharp, 1991) — cites CW 9ii ¶29; CW 7 ¶¶32, 78; CW 9i ¶167 in Sharp’s lemma.

Samuels, Shorter & Plaut (1986) — Eros pp. 54–55

Eros The principle of psychic relatedness; sometimes assumed by Jung to underlie the psychology of woman; recognised by himself as an intuitive formulation impossible to define accurately or prove scientifically… Eros and Logos as capable of co-existing within a single individual of whatever sex. … The fallacious equation of Eros with ‘feeling’ has plagued ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY…

(Samuels, Shorter, & Plaut, 1986, pp. 54–55)

5. CW concordance — sample, not exhaustive

The animus corresponds to the paternal Logos just as the anima corresponds to the maternal Eros… I use Eros and Logos merely as conceptual aids to describe the fact that woman’s consciousness is characterized more by the connective quality of Eros than by the discrimination and cognition associated with Logos. In men, Eros, the function of relationship, is usually less developed than Logos.
(Jung, 1951/1959, CW 9ii, p. 14, ¶29)

Eros is a questionable fellow and will always remain so… He belongs on one side to man’s primordial animal nature… On the other side he is related to the highest forms of the spirit. But he thrives only when spirit and instinct are in right harmony.
(Jung, 1917/1966, CW 7, p. 52, ¶32)

Where love reigns, there is no will to power; and where the will to power is paramount, love is lacking. The one is but the shadow of the other…
(Jung, 1917/1966, CW 7, p. 85, ¶78)

See also: logos; anima; animus; mother-complex; feeling; opposites; will to power.

References

Jung, C. G. (1959). The syzygy: Anima and animus. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (Vol. 9, Pt. 2, p. 14, ¶29). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1951)

Jung, C. G. (1966). On the psychology of the unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 52, 85, ¶¶32, 78). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1917)

Samuels, A., Shorter, B., & Plaut, F. (1986). A critical dictionary of Jungian analysis. Routledge.

Sharp, D. (1991). Jung lexicon: A primer of terms & concepts. Inner City Books.