I have a somewhat ambiguous relation with the New Age; rather similar to my relation to the Integral Movement. That is, I greatly like and am attracted to some things in the movement, and strongly resonate with them, but at the same time are put off, disappointed, or disillusioned by other aspects.
Critics and sceptical materialists would automatically label me (and the Kheper website) as New Age. Strictly speaking I am a panentheist and emanationist, i believe everything is ultimately Consciousness, i dislike reductionism and fundamentalism, acknowledge personal human potential and alternative healing, and think highly of Barbara Brennan, David Spangler, and Jane Roberts (Seth material) (all classic New Age authors). Does that make me New Age? It depends on one's definition of the term. According to the Wikipedia page on the subject I most likely would be included in that broad umbrella of alternatives to reductionism and exoteric literalism; but according to requiring a belief in uncritical eclectism, crystals and dolphins and ascended galactic masters and $500 workshops and other con-artistry, I most certainly am not.
But this is not to deny the New Age as a very real phenomenon. Occultly speaking I would tie in the New Age with a global transformation of consciousness initiated by the supramental descent.
In terms of the distinction (a la Wouter Hanegraaff) between the New Age Sensu Stricto and The New Age Sensu Lato, the New Age Sensu Stricto with its strongly eschatological themes of Ascension, Transformation of the DNA, Plametary Consciousness and so on can be interpreted as mythologically and imaginally distorted (mis)-interpretations of the Supremantal Transformation. The New Age is still however caught up in a world-negating misconception of spiritualisation as represented by the old yogas and religions; thus it is not really New Age but Old Age.