There arc broadly speaking two possible points of view concerning the relation of language to Lhe numinous; that it can, if with difficulty, be truly indicated; and that any attempts to speak of it will be ineffectual, and perhaps self-deluding.
Variations of the second position can be found in a number of linguist-philosophers and critical theorists. Jacques Lacan, for example, is rightly described as thinking that "the quest for the pristine, wordfree structures of thought ... is frivolous". 1 In contrast to his master, Freud, Lacan's concept of language is not of a semi-transparent veil through which the real may be discerned, however dimly, but of a medium by which the very idea of truth itself undergoes a continual reformation. When we recall that this language is - in Lacan's description of it - pervaded at every point by desire which can neither be satisfied nor openly declared, it is clear that 'numinous', far from naming that which is truly extra-ordinary, can be nothing more than a disguised wish given transcendental status.
The University of Sydney acknowledges that its campuses and facilities sit on the ancestral lands of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples, who have for thousands of generations exchanged knowledge for the benefit of all.