In this brief paper, I seek to clarify David Olson's position on literacy and textual meaning, especially with regard to the relation between theory and evidence. I do so by analysing his textual formulations. I find that I am not quite sure what exactly that position is. Nonetheless, I remain equally convinced that Olson is on to something. The first portion of the article is taken up with trying to track down a coherent reading of Olson's understanding of literacy, and thus in the process to point out areas calling for further clarification. I conclude with a brief exploration of two leads which I find in Olson's published works, leads which promise to show us something of a way out of the perplexities which currently dominate at least my own efforts to understand not only Olson's thinking but also the issue of literacy with which he continues to be concerned. KEYWORDS: meaning, text, theory, evidence, literacy, cognitive, epistemology, ontology, hermeneutics, contextualism, Olson, Heidegger, Husserl David Olson's conclusion to his "Reply to Snyder" (Olson, 1990) plunges us afresh into the issues and concerns which Howard R. Snyder raised with regard to Olson's "pilgrimage" (Snyder, 1990), and to which Olson replied. Olson wrote:To doubt the autonomy of textual meaning is equivalent to denying the autonomy of evidence, testimony, and facts from the theories, inferences, and interpretations they sustain. It is to give away, for nothing, much too much. (1990, p. 60) Just how, though, is this conclusion to be reconciled with what Olson has written elsewhere? For example, confining myself here only to texts from which