If you empathize with someone losing their loved one; you aren’t actually grasping the same thing…that’s impossible to do.
That was their loved one…not yours.
But if you’ve lost a loved one, or have a dear loved one, then your emotions to the situation are capable of projecting the empathy of their pain and sorry; so you can grasp the thing (the pain and sorry of losing a loved one).
Does that mean that it concerns the same noumenon for all subjects involved in the inter-subjectivity to you? If so, does that come to a ‘nous’ like Plato’s logoi, or to an empathic (‘real’) connection between the subjects not unlike the Spinoza example I gave?
I’m not really sure what more there is to say about it…it’s a shared “thing” in some fashion, yet divergent, even if only divergent by time of first-hand experience.
It’s cognitive and emotional in capacity (nous & empathetic) dependent on the people involved - how the “thing” affects them, which is based on what their bio-neurological and psychological make up is.
So…depending on what the “situation/thing” is, and dependent on the people involved, it will be cognitive, emotional; and all areas in between possible.
You might be thinking of it in some philosophical sense that you’ve read somewhere, but the word itself means those things above and is originated from the Greek νοῦς for “mind”, as the faculty - not like “brain”, the physical component.
Interesting. I ran across ‘nous’ in Plato btw. I read translations, so I probably got the proper thought…but sometimes such definitions can just flip things over…
Concerning inter-subjective:
Not much help I guess. If I would say that to me inter-subjective can only refer to my cognitive phenomenon of what is inter-subjective, while it can only be an intu"itive feeling as a noumenon, would you agree with that or not?
OK, then yes; that’s what I class as “implicit”.
I tend to use “intuition” for the neurological process of determining a sub-cognitive conclusion from the implicit systems of the body and brain.