>Will and Jada have ways of talking about things in lofty
>abstract terms using flowery language that tends to obfuscate
>and make things sound more unique and out of the ordinary than
>they actually are. Like saying "entanglement" instead of an
>"affair" or "cheated".

I agree with this, for the most part. One thing I found annoying about his book is that there is a fair amount of this overly pholosophical framing.

>I could take from this statement that Will very simply is
>saying, I am not leaving my wife after being very publically
>outted as having an affair.
>That's cool and even commendable.
> I get it. I think I feel the same way about my wife (hope I
>don't have to get tested to find out). But admitting that so
>plainly doesn't sound as lofty and spiritual (and less
>simp-ish) as the way he tries to put it. But if that's what
>he means by unconditional love, I get it.

That's an overly simplistic take IMO. I think the implication that he's a simp for sticking around is even more simplistic, but maybe that's not what you meant, exactly.

>BTW, I also think its a bit more complicated then it appears
>because I believe Will has had his fair share of affairs and
>just has not been publically outted (or had affairs with his
>children's friends but yeah). And most relationships are
>complicated and no one I know sits in a position to judge
>their relationship.

Agreed.

>HOWEVER, Will is also the guy who stood on the hill that there
>is NO circumstances he would ever leave his wife because he
>stood before God and said, "Til Death do us part..."** well
>that's fucking dumb to me.

Citing god as a justification for damn near anything is dumb IMO.

That said, if you believe in a god, then it makes sense that someone would take certain elements of that belief very seriously, and it's not dumb within that context.

If that is your idea of
>unconditional love, that you think doing the right thing may
>include being miserable and unhappy, well, you aren't doing
>anything particularly noble or serving anyone except your own
>ego and pride.

I think that's overly simplistic take as well.

"the right thing" can include any number of unfavorable results to ourselves. I think whether or not it's "noble" is largely irrelevant, but to the point of who it serves, it really depends on the circumstances.

These sorts of choices really boil down to game theory for a lot of people.

As someone in a not-so-dissimilar (definitely not identical) situation myself, the net positives of holding our family unit together dramatically outweighs the potential negatives, up to and included the parts where I am unhappy or dissatisfied with certain elements.

> So if that's what he means by unconditional love, then yeah
>no, that's not in the best interest of anyone in my opinion or
>experience.

My currently lived experience disagrees with this completely, though that could change if you elaborate on your meaning here.