Pressed pause on the piecework to finish the Jena Logic before the research library closed for the long weekend.
If I have this, the last bit, cognition posited is where the mind looks at the mess that it's made, say, in seeing an apple, which it initially knew to be an apple in an utterly uninformative way, and then understood by taking terms of opposites and using them to realize what it is that an apple might be -- and then, in contrition, the mind restores the initial negative universal of the object as unilluminated object, i.e., it knows what it is. And this picking the mess up from the floor, this restoration of the negative unity to the one-ness of the object is what the mind is. That's its function.
So, perhaps the point is that the mind's work isn't the mess-making of taking the thing apart, but the proof on re-assembly. So changing that middle state of realizing what an apple might be by describing it using pairs of opposites, doesn't assist the mind in what it thinks to be its central work, i.e., knowing (in an unilluminative fashion) what the thing is.
Perhaps.