'Eo ipso' vs 'Ipso facto'

Ipso facto would not make sense in your example, as there is no 'fact' referred to. Eo ipso there means 'in or by himself', which does make sense with the qualification in the next clause.

Eo ipso is not a phrase to be recommended (unless you are writing abstruse philosophy, in which case you need a considerably greater command of the language than a website can help with); on the whole, I would avoid it praeter necessitatem.

I believe eo ipso and ipso facto are in general the same.

But there is a distinction: the former has a broader meaning; the latter is bound to 'a fact'. (And in law, each is contrasted, for instance, to 'ipso iure', and 'ex lege'.)

"Eo ipso", meaning "in itself", has a greater implication than "ipso facto". Eo ipso implies a state without external influence, as a noumenon. Ipso facto implies a state dependent on external influence, as a phenomenon. I'm using Kantian language here, because the concept of eo ipso is most obviously similar to the Kantian noumenon.