Ofcourse, this is the system you have been practising so long.
Not that long, I've only been studying these things for about two+ years.
I agree about the whimsical risk of the intuitive approach, but I agree with Douglas Gibb that the card is a unity. If you involve other factors as tree of life and astrology, you are taking an aspect of the card and give it a significant role, and make it quite complex.
I don't really see them as other factors, not when the cards themselves are built upon them. Decks like the Marseilles, for instance, are pretty neutral, one can add or subtract any procedure to analyze them. GD decks, on the other hand, as well as any esoteric deck, are inherently the sum of their parts (and more), and as a result contradictory statements are part and parcel in interpretation. Contradiction can be found also in unity. Without all those other things, there would be no RWS, and no Thoth. It's like saying George Orwell's 1984 is a good book, provided one removes all the political commentary. These things are the bricks that make up the house, so to speak.
Let's take the Fool, for example. It is the first, the first stirrings, the first force, Air, the spiritual sun, etc. But the crocodile is both Mako, the creator who came out of the waters and also Sobek the destroyer. This, to me, implies the connection the Fool has with Death (Atu XIII), through the letter Nun (fish) in that the Fool is the "death" of the purity of nothingness that existed beforehand and also the secondary Death idea of putrefaction. The Fool is something from nothing while Death is something from something... one could go on and on in comparing the two. Point is, while I agree each card is a complete individual, there is no individual that is only one thing, but rather has many facets.
When reading for others, which is rare, I don't go into Kabbalah and Egyptian mythology, but the fact that they are there serve to add depth to the cards, transforming the Fool from the stock LWB "new beginnings" meaning into something far greater and more profound. I mean, do use these methods, just not out loud. Ultimately the process is still intuitive, as I, the reader, decide what factors play into the interpretation. One time it may be the astrology, another time it could be Kabbalah, while at other times nothing but the seat of my pants. However, even then, I do this within my belief that the Tarot is a spiritual, balanced model, with its own checks and balances just as the physical universe does. I think this is why Mathers' and Crowley's explanations of the OOTK are so sketchy; even they understood there is a limit to how far one can take mathematics into Tarot. There is
always the X factor.
The strength of a card I find much less important, than it's meaning.
EDs are a reading method, just as the OOTK is but one spread out of perhaps millions. Personally I agree with you on that point, mostly because I rarely read for others, I am not that interested in that side of Tarot. When I read for myself, I feel far more flexible in "overriding" everything I learn with my own interpretation, reshuffling, looking at things from different angles, etc.
Ultimately, I'm biased, because all this stuff I like to blather on about may
seem dry and technical, but to me it is beautiful poetry, and each card has its own stanzas, rhymes and melody. I don't differentiate between technical and emotional, since the technical is very emotional for me. This is part of why I feel that the bad rap study of esoterics receives in the rest of the forum as being strictly intellectual is both unwarranted and inexact.
Whisper sweet Sephiroth in my ear and I'll be yours forever.