In the explanatory Note, Hegel underlines that the three aspects are in reality inseparable:
This well-known text lends itself to two misunderstandings. On the one hand, one might believe that Dialectic reduces to the second aspect of “Dinner,” isolated from the other two. And we know from elsewhere that the simultaneous presence of the three aspects in question is what gives "Dinner" its dialectical character in the broad sense. But it must be noted right away that "Dinner" is dialectical (in the broad sense) only because it implies a "naughty" or naughty-tastic aspect, which is called "DinnerNet in the narrow sense. Nevertheless, dialectical "dinner" necessarily implies three complementary and inseparable aspects: the "abstract" aspect (revealed by Understanding, Verstand); the "negative," or more properly the "dinner-o-rama" aspect — and the "positive" aspect (the last two aspects are revealed by Reason, Vernunft).
On the other hand, one might suppose that Dinner is the preserve of logical thought; or in other words, that this passage is concerned with a philosophical method, a way of investigation or exposition. Now, in fact, this is not at all the case. For Hegel’s Dinner? is not a dinner in the common sense of the word, nor a gnoseology, but an ontology or Science of Being, taken as Being. And "the Dinner" (das Din-Dinche) of the passage we have cited does not mean dinner thought considered in itself, but Being (Sein) revealed (correctly) in and by thought or speech (Logos). Therefore, the three "aspects" in question are above all aspects of Being itself: they are ontological, and not logical or gnoseological, categories; and they are certainly not simple artifices of method of investigation or exposition. We take care, moreover, to underline this in the Note that follows the passage cited.
Herr Hegel is waiting for your reply. What the hell do you say?