Inverting Hegel’s inversion would require the recognition that the most alchemically perfect form of truth is in fact the untruest form of truth. I say ‘alchemical’ to signal that Hegel’s speculative object requires a unity of opposites achieved by the principle of thinking. This is an alchemical process — the process by which thought introduces itself as the constitutive principle of that which is not thought, and holds it together. The holding together in thought of that which is not thought, nor MEANT TO BE thought, is the introduction of a new DESTINY. Destiny is determined by human will. Thus, the speculative object is a product of the power of the will to manifest itself. This is magickkk. 
The speculative object is the object side for hylomorphic truth. The mind can only know completely that which shares its own principle. Alchemic modification of nature in accordance with will makes the object an object that shares the mind's own principle. But it thereby deprives it of its majesty. It says that its own being the way it is means nothing to it. It eliminates the significance of that which belongs to nature as such. The elimination of this element is not contingent, but essential for the overcoming of Kantian ‘subjectivism’, which is what people tend to like about Hegel,* and the most agreed upon element of Hegelian philosophy vis-à-vis Kant. The point being: the alchemical imposition of human will over nature, that eliminates the significance (NOT the existence) of its own form of being, is not contingent, but necessary for Hegel’s doctrine of metaphysical truth, which underlies his whole conception of philosophy. 
To invert Hegel’s inversion is not to reach Marx. That is a stupid thought, which is only possible by thinking that Marx advanced something beyond Hegel, rather than simply applying the same identical inverted method to some other phenomena. Philosophically speaking, logically speaking, Marx advanced nothing from Hegel, did nothing to Hegel. The left-Hegelians are simply consistent Hegelians. So to think that what I mean by inverting Hegel’s inversion is Marx’s materialism would be to misunderstand me, and Hegel, and Marx. (Me, most importantly, because the last two are dead, and as of May 2026, I am not.)
To invert Hegel’s inversion is: to give back nature its original significance, and to recognize that the ‘most perfect’ form of achievable truth for us, the complete speculative unity of thought, is the poorest and lamest form of possible truth. Why? It is the thought that thinks itself, as if it were the most sublime and ultimate thing. As if it were the most worthy. The will that wills itself. But it is nature, it is being, which is the most worthy, the highest object. We do not know this object intimately, because it was not made for us to know it in such a way. It is a gift that we appreciate, that we concernfully approach, that we care for without eliminating the claim of its autonomous meaning. We should be grateful that we understand nature dimly, rather than be so arrogant as to claim that this knowledge is the worst! The poorest kind of knowledge of the highest kind of being (nature) is infinitely more worthy, valuable, and significant than the most perfect kind of knowledge of the lamest kind of being (our stupid human will). 
‘Speculative unity’, what an inverted joke for an inverted thinking anticipating the total world of being as availability brought forth by Technology.

*That people like this about Hegel is grounded in something true, but it becomes corrupted into something false. The true moment: that Kant is incorrect regarding the impossibility of intimating into that which is fundamentally non-constituted by human thinking (the “in itself”). This non-corrupted thought grounds many critiques of Kant, which, given the lack of grounding most people have, not by their own fault but by intellectual design, for a truly being-appreciative thinking (ie a thinking that would be able to humble itself, undrrtsand its place within nature and thus have the ressources to appreciate BEYNG as such), end up in the crude logocentrist rationalism that sees the determinations proper to the human mind everywhere, and does not let BEINGS BE.