Adornoan responses to Rose?

Gillian Rose claims that Adorno's philosophy stops short at dialectical reason and does not progress to speculative reason. To do this she quotes a letter from Hegel: "Philosophical content has in its method and soul three forms: it is 1, abstract, 2, dialectical and 3, speculative. It is abstract insofar as it takes place generally in the element of thought. Yet as merely abstract it becomes – in contrast to the dialectical and speculative forms – the so-called understanding which holds determinations fast and comes to know them in their fixed distinction. The dialectical is the movement and confusion of such fixed determinateness; it is negative reason. The speculative is positive reason, the spiritual, and it alone is really philosophical" (Judaism and Modernity p. 60). By staying at the second stage and not moving to the third Adorno "remains with the dialectical antinomies" (Ibid p. 61).

This seems to have serious implications for Adorno's philosophy. As I understand it Adorno's materialism can be understood as seeing the world itself as contradictory, that 'the antinomies' Adorno remains with are not mere faults of the understanding but are themselves metaphysical facts.

In what ways do you guys think an Adornoan could respond to this?