foolMoon
Kant is regarded as one of the most important philosophers since history, so whether one likes or not, he is there to be faced if one is into these topics.Let's slow down here for just a minute. I wish to question your respective definitions of science and metaphysics.
I'm willing to accept your proposition that there is a fundamental division between the two, and that we are currently dealing with the latter (even though, as Ravenest has so beautifully pointed out, that division actually has little historical relevance in understanding the source of the current widely accepted correspondences). However, it's incorrect to say that metaphysics "is in the realm of belief, not universally verifiable truths". Even your buddy Kant (of whom I'm personally not much of a fan) would have disagreed with this. Kant hated belief, and moreover, his categorical imperative was all about universality.
Anyhow, the topics dealt in Metaphysics such as God, Freewill, Life after death ..... how could you come to the universally verifiable truths about them?
They are matter of one's belief or faith, and conclusions about these questions are postulated, not verified by reason according to Kant.
His Categorical imperatives about universality is same, they are postulated concept rather than verified.
The only truths verifiable by reason is mathematical truths such as 1+1=2, or scientific truths such as given all the same conditions, water will boil at 100 degree centigrade, or the Sun will rise in the east which is verified by empirical induction. We don't want to get mixed up with these kind of truths with metaphysical truths postulated by belief and faith, or enlightened by practices.
So let's instead propose a different set of definitions (if you'll accept them). Science is empirical, striving for truth based on observational knowledge, whereas metaphysics is purely rational, relying on reason and logic to reveal truths about things we can never directly observe. (In that sense, it's a bit like math.)
Why is this distinction important? Because your argument that metaphysical systems "are not always explainable, or making sense" is wrong. Some systems go back thousands of years, yes, which means that in order to understand them, we have to follow them back thousands of years. (This is exactly what Ravenest has proposed, if I've understood correctly.) But they can still be understood, if you're willing to hunt for the primary sources.
You can use your reason trying to know about all those issues in Metaphysics until the end of the world, but your reason (if it is reasonable), in the end (or instantly) tells you, that it is unknowable, unverifiable, so they are in the realm of faith.
On the flipside, yes, some may be derived from personal, irreducible metaphysical intuitions. Those intuitions are perfectly acceptable on an individual basis, but if they lack intellectual rigor, then they're no basis for a broader, more generalized metaphysics. (This point is similar to the religious idea of UPG; if you have a personal revelation from God telling you that you should wear yellow to church every Sunday, you're more than welcome to do so, but that revelation is not sufficient reason for other people to wear yellow, too.)
If the existing system for astrological correspondences in Tarot doesn't work for you, you are of course welcome to develop a system of your own for personal use. (I myself am guilty of the selfsame sin.) That's totally fair game, and no one on this forum could stop you even if they wanted to. However, you cannot then bring that system into the public sphere and expect people to recognize it or work within its framework. Your personal system can only ever be personal.
And even if you do stray from the garden path, I would still recommend that you do the research (especially since you've bought the books) necessary to understand the existing system of correspondences. There is an underlying logic there, and it's important to recognize that. True, the system is rational rather than empirical, and is in many ways disconnected from the world of modern science, but that does not in any way imply that there aren't still rules guiding its construction. And abandoning that system altogether, or mixing and matching from it without understanding it, means that you'll lose the rigor that makes the system what it is.
Those were just possible options for who are in this journey trying to reach the enlightenment by whatever means possible. It's up to oneself which option to take. Abandoning the whole journey, and then going back to a materialist or nihilist is also an option.
I never said the historical and ancient works are of no use. Whether you follow one of the traditional system, or create your own, you will still rely on the historical sources.