The recognition of bias can lead to a shocked awakening and a readjustment into a different direction of bias. It's not the newly acquired context of understanding that is important but the capacity for that momentary response to the recognition. The fact that one cannot get away from error in this way is clear as long as the larger context is that of recognitions and insights taken as leading to greater understanding. The positive Hegelianism that we all subscribe to without knowing it, that permeates popular culture from high to low, must yield before something else, a non-existent and even impossible negative Hegelianism, not in any way systematic but stationary, as it were, in the so-called labour of the negative. Contexts of understanding are paths, and each of these paths is futile because always pitched against a respective ideal or result of its own. These may be significant cognitively and even empirically, but metaphysically they represent mental busy-ness with self-invented games that melt away to nothing in deep sleep. They are modes of caring and survive as candidates - even for the title of inverted Hegelianism - in a world of caring, of motives, purposes and purposive action. This mental world even at its most sane is a crazy compartmentalised world shattered into myriads of fragments which reflect and allegorise each other. Any objective image or point in cognitive or purposive or valuational space is subject to unlimited readings from the space of interpretations or contexts or contexts of contexts, from spiritual space in other words, so that the two spaces are duals to each other. Metaphysically they are exactly equivalent: if you can't get out of one then you can't get out of the other, and if you can get out of one then you can also leave the other by the same door - only apparently going in the opposite direction.