Dr Kelly Ross [Kant Fries School] brings an idea about immediate non intuitive knowledge which to me seems close to the idea of Michael Huemer about intellectual perception. In short the idea of immediate knowledge is knowledge that is not through anything. It is known immediately. But to me this does not seem all that different than Michael Huemer's idea that reason recognizes universals.`

The library here is closing in few minutes. So let me just add that Huemer's idea is that universals that things like laws of nature or moral laws. These are recognized by the faculty of reason. But this is prime facie. That is why more clear principles can defeat less clear principles.

I really have to go so I recommend looking up their web sites.

later note. true what i say here. yet there is somewhat of a difference. first dr huemer is coming from Prichard [and his book Kant’s theory of knowledge] and dr huemer is putting whiteness [universals] along with synthetic apriori which is combining universals. that last thing is in the area of concepts and the first thing is in the area of intuition. also, I would like to add i need to ask dr ross about I would like to ask this question: in what area is immediate non intuitive knowledge applicable? The first metaphysics [combining concepts about particular things like the laws of physics], or about metaphysics in its second part: e.g., the universe as a whole. i.e., things that cannot be experienced by the senses except indirectly. For I think Kant thought knowledge in the first area is possible but not in the second. I think that this third kind of knowledge is meant as a basis of both areas--to serve as a source of axioms like the 12 categories and also the universe as a whole