I read your link and I think Parmenides is wrong ("Parmenides had been forced to the position that there is in reality no change at all").
Carrying (from your provided link) Aristotle's thought ... "From being-in- potency there can come being-in-act," and Michelangelo's comment about statues ... a bit further ...
If a statue is the act of the stone, the fact remains that the statue is material from stone.
And so, for the soul ...
If the soul is the act of the body, logic holds that the soul is material from body.
Sounds to me like Aristotle was approaching some truth regarding the mortality of the soul.
If a statue is the act of the stone, the fact remains that the statue is material from stone.For Aristotle, a primary substance (such as a particular statue) is a union of matter and form. Aristotle distinguishes between matter as potentiality and form as actuality. For example, a block of stone in abstraction from form is potentially a statue, but when the stone receives the form that constitutes the essence of a statue, it is actually a statue.
Aristotle would not say that "the statue is material from stone"; rather, he would say that the material cause of a statue is stone, but the formal cause is the unifed essence that it receives from the artist.
I don't see how you get that. The soul (and all forms) are non-material, by definition.
Thanks for taking the time for reading the links. You seem to be an honest truth-seeker, which makes you a seeker of The Truth, whether you're aware of it or not. 8-)