I never understood how or why is it that the Orthodox set up a problem here. We all agree that the Son proceeds from the Father, and in saying this they don't see any inferiority of the Son to the Father, but when the Latins say that the Spirit likewise proceeds from the Father but through the Son, suddenly the Orthodox perceive an inferiority of the Spirit to the Son. But if the Son is not inferior on account of His procession from the Father, then how is the Spirit inferior on account of His procession from the Father through the Son? One might try to argue that a procession from the Father but through the Son implies inferiority to the Son on behalf of the Spirit, but it implies this no more than the procession of the Son from the Father implies an inferiority of the Former to the Latter. That the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but only by way of the Son, is simply a reflection of the metaphysical depedence of what is loved on the object of what is loved. (Please see below.)
The way I understand it, the Son isn't inferior to the Father in essence, but he is in logical succession. Just as you are saying with logical succession, not order of time. Even though Father and Son are equal, the Son proceeds from the Father, not the other way around. So this makes the Son logically inferior, in that the Father gives the being (act of, not person) of son to the Son, but the Son does not give the being of father to the Father. Likewise, the Father breathes the Spirit, but the Spirit does not likewise breathe the Father. In this, the patriarchy of the Father is preserved. The persons of the Son and the Spirit are not confused in their respective processions, because one proceeds by generation, the other by spiration. I was just reading about this the other day in a book by an Orthodox author and he put it like this: the problem with the filioque is that the Latins do not properly distinguish between God's essences and energies. So if something is true of both the Father and the Son, this has to do with their divine essence, and must also be true of the Spirit. If something is not true of all three persons, then it relates to the energies, as carried out by individual persons, so can only be true of the person performing it, in order for the three persons to be truly distinct, not confused. If both the Father and Son can cause to proceed, then the Spirit must also have this quality, in which case there should be a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. ad infinitum. If procession is not of the divine essence, then it can only be true of the Father without the other persons being blended into the Father. At any rate, procession from both the Father and the Son, and especially as from one principle, is problematic because it subordinates the Spirit to the Son and the Father by implying that the Spirit contains less of the divine essence in some way, and confuses the Father and the Son in that the divine activity of procession cannot be attributed to one person specifically.
The Orthodox presentation of the teaching results in a lack of any essential distinction between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost; both proceed from God the Father independently of the other such that both are relatively and relationally identical to the Father.
The difference in type or procession is the distinction between Son and Spirit.
Therefore, the "filioque" phrase was used to designate the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son in a way that makes the spiration of the Spirit a consequence (as it were) of the procession of the Son from the Father.
And in so doing, confuses the Father and the Son.
The Orthodox doctrine disconnects knowledge from love as though God’s love can be disattached and entirely separate from His knowledge. This is the same as saying that love can be disattached and entirely separate from its object, as though love can exist in some abstract sense without an object. In this sense: 'I love, but I don't love any thing.' This is an insurmountable metaphysical difficulty.
I don't think this is an accurate understanding of the Orthodox point of view.