Our opponents will probably deny the validity of our arguments against the theory that the HUMAN SOUL is a mere segment of the All-Soul – the considerations, namely, that it is of identical scope, and that it is intellective in the same degree, supposing them, even, to admit that equality of intellection. Enneads IV,3,1
We might be led to think that all soul must always inhabit body; this would seem especially plausible in the case of the soul of the universe, not thought of as ever leaving its body as the HUMAN SOUL does: there exists, no doubt, an opinion that even the HUMAN SOUL, while it must leave the body, cannot become an utterly disembodied thing; but assuming its complete disembodiment, how comes it that the HUMAN SOUL can go free of the body but the All-Soul not, though they are one and the same? There is no such difficulty in the case of the Intellectual-Principle; by the primal differentiation, this separates, no doubt, into partial things of widely varying nature, but eternal unity is secured by virtue of the eternal identity of that Essence: it is not so easy to explain how, in the case of the soul described as separate among bodies, such differentiated souls can remain one thing. Enneads IV,3,4
Can we escape by the theory that, while HUMAN SOULs – receptive of change, even to the change of imperfection and lack – are in time, yet the Soul of the All, as the author of time, is itself timeless? But if it is not in time, what causes it to engender time rather than eternity? The answer must be that the realm it engenders is not that of eternal things but a realm of things enveloped in time: it is just as the souls (under, or included in, the All-Soul) are not in time, but some of their experiences and productions are. For a soul is eternal, and is before time; and what is in time is of a lower order than time itself: time is folded around what is in time exactly as – we read – it is folded about what is in place and in number. Enneads IV,4,15
When the desiring faculty is stirred, there is a presentment of the object – a sort of sensation, in announcement and in picture, of the experience – calling us to follow and to attain: the personality, whether it resists or follows and procures, is necessarily thrown out of equilibrium. The same disturbance is caused by passion urging revenge and by the needs of the body; every other sensation or experience effects its own change upon our mental attitude; then there is the ignorance of what is good and the indecision of a soul (a HUMAN SOUL) thus pulled in every direction; and, again, the interaction of all these perplexities gives rise to yet others. Enneads IV,4,17
And – if it is desirable to venture the more definite statement of a personal conviction clashing with the general view – even our HUMAN SOUL has not sunk entire; something of it is continuously in the Intellectual Realm, though if that part, which is in this sphere of sense, hold the mastery, or rather be mastered here and troubled, it keeps us blind to what the upper phase holds in contemplation. Enneads IV,8,8