That is what I am thinking. The enactive approach to perception holds an implicit understanding which can be seen as sort of ongoing knowledge. But even if we can use body-language into social conduct it is not that this implicit knowledge grows over the other people like one or the other undefined system. No, we learn what we have to learn, and we do what we are able to. It stops somewhere, so why bother about processes that are shared into interaction and could have a special connection between world and others? But it does bother me of course, since there is no clear focus on real understanding. We understand implicitly, and the question remains unsolved what memory has to do with it. Cause how I see it now, it seems that we are talking about an explanation of procedural memory, which is in fact closely bound to action.
Of course perception is perception, and we could see things more in function of this concept than that of action. The role of action would be as a result very significant but not central. Maybe this is a good way to regard it, action learns us about the consequences of our deeds. Those results shape new perceptions, which is a process which could be linked with other processes, like Self-processes, categorization processes, judgmental processes, ... All processes which deal on a certain level with perception. But I am afraid of this simulation-analogy. I want to put things concrete. Some tasks could be more complex and more long-term, even if some write that complex tasks have to be handled with awareness. This is indeed a central claim, that they are not!!