I suppose I didn't express myself well. The point I was trying to make was that two people using the same tools to get at an idea, in this instance a card, will arrive at answers that are perhaps in the same ballpark, but subtly different. I think it depends on the way each person works out the ideas for themselves, how much weight they attribute to each factor and their point of view, and there can be endless variations within that. For example, both cards share an angle of "two-ness" but it's at once the same and different, because here we have airy twoness while there we have watery twoness. There's the twoness of Chochma while Binah, although it is three, also has an element of duality. But which Binah are we talking about, the fertile or the dark, and we can also wax on about the facets' similarities and differences. Is the Cups card "more" or "less" two than the other, becomes it comes before? And so on, it never really ends.
I agree that the basic purpose of these divisions, sub-divisions and technical terms is an attempt to arrive to an idea that is as pure and as specific as possible. The actual assimilation of that idea, however, will be different in each individual, especially when you're talking about a Tarot card that is, as a whole, an incredibly multi-faceted symbol.
If I wanted, for example, to become pregnant, I could justify (well, theoretically) offering a sacrifice to Chochma, since that's the "two" sephira, but I could also justify a sacrifice to Binah or Hod. All those ideas are so interconnected that unless you do arrive at the pure idea, it will always be colored, to an extent.
