Sorry I didn't make my point clear. I mean that every property of representation(including spatial and temporal) which we attribute to things are properties that we represent them as having, not properties that they have. Not that the spatial and temporal property can apply to other properties. It is generalization for Kant's idealism, which is called by some philosophers representation idealism.

Can't "what" the entity is, its nature, its meaning, be considered a non-spatial and non-temporal authoctinous property of the entity? — charles ferraro

And this is exactly thing-in-itself in Kant, which have no spatial, temporal and other properties, or at least we human can not get knowledge of.

Generally speaking, for Kant the temporal and spatial properties which we attribute to things are properties that we represent them as having, not properties that they have. The doctrine extends to every property. We human are equipped with the Forms that organize the objects in our experience/representation temporally and spatially.
However, it is controversial whether Kant treats space and time identically, concerning the property of representation itself. Kant explicits that space-order of representations is a property that the mind merely represents representations as having, not one that they actually have. However, representations appear to have temporal position and order themselves. Thus many reading of Kant has argued that Kant concedes to reality of the temporal property of representations — while temporal property of the objects in representations is given by human's mind, the representations/experience itself have metaphysically real temporal property.
The debate is reviewed by Andrew Brook in his Kant and Time-order Idealism. It's a good essay.

Ratiocination is the intellectual operation which consists of composition or synthesis, and decomposition or analysis. It is the operation of the discursive mind which puts things together and pulls things apart. All formal systems of reasoning and logic are meant as aids to ratiocination, and in our world today ratiocination is by far the dominant intellectual act. It is so dominant that when folks like BonJour reference intellection ('intuition') our culture tends to balk! — Leontiskos

I appreciate your dichotomy. But after all what exactly is intellection, after removing all inference reasoning (inductive,deductive,abductive)? It seems to me nothing left but definition of notion and reference of object. e.g
Bachelor is unmarried.
This is a table. (poiting at the table)

In other word, intellection is some sentence that I understand immediate when I get the meaning of each composition of them —— meaning of 'bachelor', 'unmarried' 'table'. In your terminology 'presupposed term and concept'.
I am skeptical this notion would be what BouJour and other foundamentalists (for example George Bealer) propose as a foundation for knowledge(take it as justified beliefs). For one thing, the truthness of such propositions seems too trivial to be a souce of evidence. The proposition 'bachelor is married .' despite its trueness takes me to no further belief. Additionally, it is true that the fact that even such proposition can be fallible does not follow that it cannot be the source of justification, but it obviously does not grant any positive epistomolocial status, right? So maybe in case ratiocination is available it should be prefered and we should be more careful when intellection is applied.

Anyway thanks again for your explaining the notions of ratiocination and intellection. And I am quite curious the history of these notions in philosophical discourse, since I have rarely encountered them in readings. Have a good day!

Intuition does not provide justification, it identifies knowledge that needs to be justified, brings it to our attention. If it's something not important, not much justification is needed. As I've noted in previous posts, reason does not generate ideas, it tests them. — T Clark

Thank you! It is insightful to consider it as a pinpoint to the knowledge you need.

“In any case, I'm with Bonjour. I take it that he's arguing for a rationalist view which accepts that there are necessary truths.”

I am with the rationalists too. I feel cynical standing on the relativism side. But building the foundation of justification on intuition, which as discussed by Darkneos,Philosophim and other users is derived from knowledge, seems question-begging.
That is the reason why I thought the notion of intuition should be elaborated, mainly in epistemology discussion.