Maverick discusses my reincarnation post. He has spotted the obvious problem with my hypothesis that an ego can exist for a certain period, then cease to exist, then exist again, citing an 'authority' in his defence. It is probably easier to read his (elegant and clear) discussion of the problem rather than for me to attempt a garbled summary.
I am looking for scholastic discussion on what happens to souls while they are waiting for the judgment day, so more later. Meanwhile, here is Scotus' discussion in the Ordinatio II distinction 2 on the question of whether an angel (read: soul) can be in two places at one, and here is the same question discussed in the (probably earlier) Lectura. Maverick defends a similar idea.
 The first argument is that if an angel (or soul) could be in different places, then it would be distant from itself, just as one place is different from another. This is because two things which are together in respect of some third thing, have to be together themselves, and conversely if they are not together, the third thing they are together with would be distant from itself. He replies, that the third thing to which the first two are compared is not limited in the respect in which the two things are compared to it, as is clear in the case of the soul in the right hand, and the soul in the left hand. The hands are distant from each other, but the soul is not distant from itself. Likewise, God is not distant from himself, and yet those things which are with God here (i.e. in Oxford), and those things which are with God in Rome, are distant from one another.
I'm not clear about the sense in which my soul is 'in' my hand, nor in the sense that God is 'with' someone in Oxford as well as someone in Rome. Is it the same as the sense in which this blog post is 'with' Bill in Phoenix, as well as with me here? And with Anthony, David and the other places where my readers are?