A Thought Concerning Types of Souls

Plotinus maintained that human souls were divine at root, and only had to shed their bodies to return to it. Iamblichus and Proclus maintained that human souls were not divine, but could strive towards and gain similitude to divinity through certain practices.

What if they were both right?

Thomas Taylor notes (in a footnote somewhere, and I've read so many of these that I can't remember where) that there are three categories of souls that incarnate as humans. The lowest are those are haven't even the strength to turn their eyes heavenward. The middle are those who possess enough strength to save themselves, but not enough to save others. The highest, though, are those souls that are strong enough that they needn't take on a body at all, but only do so out of compassion for others, in order to teach and guide: the likes of Pythagoras, Laozi, Sakyamuni, Jesus, Bodhidarma, etc. etc.

Let us suppose that different kinds of souls do exist and do incarnate as humans. Let us also suppose that Plotinus was of this highest, more divine category: this does not seem a stretch to me, as Plotinus' speech and actions seem too enigmatic and lofty to be properly called human, even when placed beside a Porphyry who, it seems to me, is an example of an upper limit of human endeavor. And let us suppose that the likes of Iamblichus and Proclus are of the same sort as Porphyry: great in their own way, but still mere men.

If all these things are so, then perhaps these were all simply and accurately describing their own inner experiences and revelations. Plotinus saw souls as divine because his, being of that highest category, was. Proclus and Iamblichus saw souls as less-than-divine because theirs, being of that middle category, were.

This is all very speculative, so don't trust it—I was just pondering, is all.