He does, and in fact he devotes a couple of sections of this very short tractate to exactly that topic! The soul resides strictly in the empyrean, and while it joins in part with the body, it doesn't shed its timelessness or divinity to do so. It more just wears a body like a vehicle or clothing, I think?

So when I say things like "becoming" and "do" and so on, these should be understood to reflect my admittedly weak understanding of how timelessness and time interact and also the limitations of English itself. It's like how people refer to Neoplatonism as a sequence of "emanations" or "creations" even though, properly speaking, the empyrean is eternal and unchanging and thus no "creative acts" take place: rather it's more of an ontological ordering of "containment" or "prior existence" or the like...