In this paper the authors reflect on the contents of this current issue of ZDM and ask why focus an entire issue on enactivism as a research methodology in mathematics education. In their synthesis of the papers they distinguish and explicate what they observe as three moves in the enactivist research discussed. The first move (and the one that receives much of the attention in the papers) is that of the observer. Enactivism proposes the observer is one who arises in the act of observing and whose knowing is explained through the mechanism she describes. The second move is an understanding that all knowing is perceptually guided action that brings forth a world of significance. The third is a consequence of the first two: All knowing has implications. Hence that third move is towards ethics. The observer is not neutral; her observations bring forth worlds of significance that intersect with the worlds of others. They conclude, that the strength of enactivism as a methodological frame for mathematics education research is that it is a form of research that is incomplete. Incomplete in that from this framework there is necessarily always more to be said and different grounds for the saying about the phenomena under investigation in mathematics education.