I realised yesterday that it was not a coincidence that so much New Age thinking is aiming at some kind of 'healing' - because when 'healing' is the aim, we have already accepted that the current System is normative, is Good.
To say that somebody (or something) needs healing is to accept that 'dysphoria' - feeling bad in some way - is the proper focus, and the goal is to remove this bad-feeling.
Therefore, healing is another example of the kind of double-negative thinking that I regard as mistaken when it becomes the bottom line. But even more importantly is that such motivation is locked-into the mainstream morality of modern life; which is 'hedonic' and rooted in assertions or imputations concerning the gratification or sufferings of people.
By the mainstream-modern-morality 'liberalism'): that is good which alleviates suffering - and 'evil' is reframed as infliction of suffering. But since suffering is part of the human condition; the hedonic morality reduces to a dread-full complex of anti-human, anti-freedom and ultimately anti-life ethic: since the only way to ensure zero suffering is not to live, and for the living to die.
This is why Romantic Christianity should not be framed in negative terms such as alleviating alienation, or the misery of materialism; or healing the rift between mind and body, subjective and objective or any such - because such a motivation will reduce to the liberal-hedonic ethic; which plays into the hands of the materialistic status quo will just become a part of The System, will just reinforce The System - as did New Age spirituality.
Therefore, Romantic Christianity should be presented and explained in terms of what positive benefits it brings (e.g an individual purpose in life, a direct experiential basis of Christianity, that all of life in every detail has meaning etc.), rather than in terms of what negative harms it alleviates.
