The Triphasic Model of Love: An Adaptation to the State of FLOW
Numerous scientific attempts have been made to deconstruct the various dimensions of love, such as identifying its core components—attachment, intimacy, and passion (Sternberg, 1986)—or pinpointing neurobiological correlates of pleasure and reward in brain regions such as the ventral tegmental area and caudate nucleus (Bartels & Zeki, 2000). However, the transformative nature of love, capable of inspiring creativity, resilience, and profound meaning, extends well beyond the scope of scientific analysis alone. Whether experienced as an intensified form of desire, fleeting infatuation, enduring commitment, or even an unhealthy obsession, love remains central to human existence, guiding individuals toward their aspirations.
This essay seeks to simplify the intricate nature of love by proposing a new framework—the Triphasic Model of Love (TML)—and examining its adaptation to the State of FLOW.
The Triphasic Model of Love and its Variations
Even though love is often regarded as the essence of life and the reason for existence, understanding this abstract concept has always been a challenge. The multifaceted and profoundly human experience of love spans a wide spectrum of emotions, behaviors, and relationships. Its manifestations take countless forms—romantic infatuation, familial affection, passion for art and creation, patriotism, loyalty to a group or cause, and altruistic ambitions. This deep-rooted drive, observable in many sentient beings, serves as the fundamental basis for reproduction, parental care, and social bonding, contributing to survival from an evolutionary standpoint (Fisher, 2004).
While love may be considered a universal drive, its expression varies across cultures and eras, shaped not only by genetic influences but also by nurture—upbringing, family dynamics, societal norms, religious beliefs, personal values, and individual experiences. In other words, the complex interplay between innate drives and the rational mind’s regulatory mechanisms creates a diverse range of mental and behavioral responses, many of which remain difficult to fully describe or explain.
The abstract and versatile nature of love allows it to be perceived in countless ways—as a path, a goal, a journey, an experience, a condition, a process, or a state of being—each offering a unique lens through which to explore this profound concept.
This essay seeks to simplify the intricate nature of love by proposing a new framework—the Triphasic Model of Love (TML)—and examining its different phases and variations. By conceptualizing love as a journey and breaking it down into distinct phases, this model aims to provide a clearer understanding of how love evolves, shapes, and defines the human experience.
When Love Burns Unequally:
A Divine Curse or an Asymmetrical Passage to Union
The Triphasic Model of Love (TML) describes love as a transformative journey through three phases of Attraction, Immersion and Union. The immersive phases on its own is composed of three stages:
Belonging – a selfless emotional attachment.
Ignorace (Ignoring with Grace) – a hopeful blindness to flaws and risks.
Creation – a redefinition of identity inspired by love.
These stages reflect a deep emotional surrender that leads to personal transformation and culminates in shared union. Yet, in many real-world relationships, partners often do not arrive at union through the same path.
One as the Immersed Lover, One as the Rational Evaluator
Contrary to romantic ideals, it is often the case that only one partner (the lover) enters love through emotional immersion, fully experiencing the stages of belonging, ignorace, and creation. Meanwhile, the other partner (the loved one) frequently approaches union from the earlier Attraction phase, guided predominantly by rationality, social alignment, or practical considerations, rather than emotional surrender.
In such cases:
The immersive stages of love may not be experienced—at least not initially—by the rational partner.
The decision to enter union often stems from logic, compatibility, or external expectations, rather than emotional transformation.
Meanwhile, the other partner (the loved one), in many modern dynamics, may arrive at union from the earlier Attraction phase—where rationality, social alignment, or life timing shape the decision, rather than emotional surrender.
In such cases:
The immersive stages of love may not be experienced—at least not initially—by the rational partner.
The decision to enter union often stems from logic, compatibility, or external expectations, rather than emotional transformation.
Emotional Imbalance: The Asymmetry at Union
This asymmetrical entry into union creates a significant emotional gap:
The partner who has undergone immersive love seeks emotional reciprocity.
The other partner, anchored in reason, remains guarded or hesitant to fully surrender emotionally.
The result is pain—the kind often mislabeled as the inevitable price of love, but more accurately understood as the pain arising from unbalanced emotional transformation.
The Divine Curse of Exile: A Pattern of Vulnerability
Genesis 3:16 need not be read solely as divine punishment but rather as a metaphor for psychological and emotional asymmetry:
“Your desire shall be for your husband” – symbolizes an asymmetrical depth of longing experienced by the immersed lover, creating vulnerability shaped by unequal emotional transformation and biological dependency.
“And he shall rule over you” – speaks to an imbalances is rulership in relationship of lover and loved one and symbolizes a psychological reaction by the emotionally vulnerable lover, who may seek control or possession as a substitute for genuine reciprocity and shared immersion.
In TML terms:
The transformed lover anticipates mutual immersion.
When mutual immersion is absent, the lover may shift from relating to possessing—mistaking control for genuine connection.
This misunderstanding becomes the root of emotional pain often mistakenly considered an intrinsic part of love, rather than a result of misaligned entry paths into union.
Conclusion
This reinterpretation of the ancient passage reveals a deeper truth:
Love becomes painful when two people reach union through different routes—one through emotional transformation, the other through rational alignment. The imbalance lies not in their intentions but in the depth of emotional commitment each brings into the union.
Understanding this dynamic through the lens of the Triphasic Model of Love opens the door to healthier, more conscious relationships—relationships not built on possession, compromise, or dominance, but on shared immersion, mutual transformation, and the continually evolving journey of love.
The Union
A cheerful glow in yellow,
under the midday sun,
bathed in light, colors, and petals,
dancing, swaying in the joy of union.
Laughter rises, weaving bliss into the sky,
the sun envies the golden hues of their robes.
A ritual interwoven with songs and melodies,
the bride’s joy—pure, unguarded.
A feast of abundance, lavish and rich,
flavors lined up in eager invitation,
plates overflowing with fulfillment,
a table untouched by sacrifice.
A spectacle of light,
dancers twirling, voices soaring,
heralding the joy of union
in every breath, in every moment.
The celebration of union,
a beautiful translation of love,
the tale of two becoming one,
a new chapter in an ancient book.
Human Immortality:
Beyond the Frame of Mortality
The traditional view tells us that Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden marked the birth of mortality—a divine punishment for disobedience. Science, in its own way, echoes this view: it reduces us to biological machines, destined to perish, with death programmed into every cell since conception. Existentialism, too, paints a somber image, framing our existence within the boundaries of despair and finality.
In these narratives, life becomes a framed picture defining death—rigid, closed, and fading.
But what if the frame itself is an illusion?
If we are truly within the picture, not merely spectators of it, then the concept of borders dissolves. The frame belongs to an external gaze—a perspective alien to the soul living inside the canvas. To imagine our own existence through the detached eyes of others is as absurd as believing someone else can fully know our thoughts, dreams, or essence.
Theory of Mind allows us to imagine the thoughts and feelings of others—a bridge built from empathy and inference. Yet it remains a reflection, not a true crossing; no one can ever fully step into another’s mind.
Ironically, in a reverse application of Theory of Mind, we project our own death into another’s imagined gaze—fabricating a frame around the canvas of life and mourning an end we have never truly seen.
From within the picture, there are no edges. Life is not a framed, finite snapshot—it is a flowing, boundless experience.
Thus, we are immortal.
Mortality is a concept born of observation.
If awareness truly ends at death, then there is no one left to experience the ending. From the first-person perspective, there is no death—only life, lived until the final heartbeat. Beyond that: silence, unknowable and unexperienced. In this sense, existence is infinite from within itself.
But more than that, we are not only immortal—we are forever young. Each moment is the youngest and healthiest we will ever be again. Now is the most vital point in the rest of our journey. Each second is a fresh arrival, not a fading echo.
Once, a person found an old lamp. As he cleaned it, a genie appeared and said,
“You may ask for one wish. Your wish is my command.”
The person replied, “I wish to have an immortal life and remain forever young.”
Poof.
When the dust and smoke cleared, he found himself unchanged.
Still confused, he asked, “Why am I still the same?”
The genie answered,
“You wished for what you already had all along.”
Still, beyond this inward perspective of immortality—often dismissed as wishful thinking—there exists another, more enduring form: a true elixir of immortality, proven by time.
Omar Khayyam, the great Persian poet known for his hedonistic and existential reflections, once lamented:
Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust, to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and—sans End!
And yet, even as Khayyam foresaw the silence of dust, love has proved him wrong.
When humanity was cast out of heaven, it was not merely a banishment—it came with a gift: the chance to rediscover immortality through love.
Love—the true elixir that bridges what seems mortal with what is truly eternal.
It is love that allows us to still hear Khayyam’s voice after a thousand years.
It is love that makes Rumi’s words pulse with life centuries after his death.
It is love that grants immortality to every poem, every song, every act of kindness that reverberates beyond a single life.
And perhaps, if we step out of the imagined frame of death and live through the eyes of the soul immersed in love, we will finally understand:
We have always been immortal.
The frame of mortality belongs to those who look from the outside;
but from within the living canvas, life knows no end.