Splunge, I have to confess this is a topic that depresses me every time it appears, which isn't your fault...
First off, there is no division between study and intuition. They are two spheres that are both inextricably linked. If anyone in the entire world can tell me how anyone operates SOLELY on either intuition or study then I will happily proclaim that individual a robot. Humans use these functions consonantly and constantly. Every hardcore scholar has flashes of insight. Every pure psychic observes and absorbs the world around them.
More importantly I think this illusory distinction stems from (and I feel like I type this sentence in different ways at least once a month) confusion and misuse of the words Study and Intuition.
For the record, the Dictionary defines Intuition as direct perception of truth independent of any reasoning process. The moment reason or logic or impressions are involved, intuition is not. That means that studying something does not alter your intuition any more than ignoring the world guarantees an improved intuitive function. It's like suggesting a baby could learn to read a novel intuitively or that you could start to sing opera intuitively. Whenever people say they ONLY read intuitively, it generally lets me know that they do not know the meaning of the word. Because the only way you could do something completely intuitively would be to remove every one of your senses which might affect your impartial access to the divine spark. Mainly what people mean is that they're "getting the gist" or "can figure it out from the preconceptions they have." Both of these are perfectly acceptable, but they are not intuition.
By the same token, there are any number of understandings of the word Study, but a good one would be: acquisition of knowledge by direct critical exploration and observation. It seems to me that people who associate "books" with regurgitating keywords (to be frank) had crappy experiences with crappy teachers growing up and haven't moved on. A book is different in each new pair of hands. And books are only as useless as the mind that encounters them. Can you "learn" how to fall in love? Can you write down the first time someone betrayed you? Obviously not. Anyone who tells you memorization is the totality of education is a functional moron. By the same token, every time you look at an image more than once (including the cards themselves) you are studying it. So even the most bibliophobic Umbrae-ic Tarot practice involves study. Even Umbrae says so, although he often exaggerates to make points.
I feel like a crazy person even as I type these sentences for the umpteenth time: They cannot be separated. There is no way to separate them. They are two interdependent functions of the human consciousness... It is like suggesting you can have light without shadow.
The only thing I think is silly in Tarot practice is laziness. There is no excuse for it: but for my money, it's something I can't abide in the world. Tarot is just part of that. Anything worth having requires an investment: that is one of the main reasons it's worth having.
Books are useful. But only if you interact with them as an active consciousness. Personal Gnosis is useful, but it cannot be articulated. We all have to find our own way and it is a wide and arduous and wonderful way. We are not insects.
Scion