For if knowledge of knowledge is additional to knowledge itself, the claim in the original case is rejected. If it is not additional, then the distinction holds.

He seeks to equate knowledge of knowledge with knowledge of the known object.

We say:

If that known object is knowledge itself, then every known object is knowledge itself.

Both premises are rejected. He has indeed stated that this objection remains unresolved. Yet we know with immediate certainty that this is sophistry, and that anyone who identifies the existing, created object of knowledge itself with the knower’s very knowledge of it obstinately rejects the truth and denies the Creator.

[The Sixth Argument]

His statement:

“Do not suppose that your being the substrate of that form is a condition for your apprehension of it, for you apprehend your own essence even though you are not its substrate. Rather, your being the substrate of that form is merely a condition for that form to be present to you, which is a condition for your apprehension of it. If that form becomes present to you in some other way, without inhering in you, apprehension occurs without inherence.”

The reply is:

There are two forms here: the form existing externally, and the intelligible form corresponding to it, which is called knowledge.

If what is meant is that being the substrate of the intelligible form is not a condition for apprehending