I want to add to what Vineeto wrote, which is that you’re even though you say that happiness and harmlessness are two different elements of the same thing, you’re nevertheless establishing a sequence of happiness first, then harmlessness second.
In practice, as they are both different ways to describe the same “motion”, there is no intrinsic sequence like you say here.
The way you describe that “of course” as the wishing well for the other indicates to me that you have indeed started to experientially touch on what the harmlessness aspect of happiness and harmlessness refers to.
So here’s the key: as actualism is experiential, the entire point of reading the words and learning the jargon, as it were, is to establish proper referents for all of the words (referent=that which is referred to by a word). The only possible way to do this is, of course, by experiencing that thing being described, genuinely experiencing it, and then connecting the word to that experience. And, of course, being sincere about, from then on, using that word only to refer to that and only when it actually is being experienced.
Now that you know what “harmlessness” refers to, consider that, if one is being sorrowful and sad then, by putting harmlessness, by considering the harmlessness aspect and committing to harmlessness as in that particular part of the equation, that also will lead to that person recognizing that them being sorrowful is harmful (in how it affects others) and thus minimizing that sorrow to get back to feeling good.
As a general rule of thumb I find that if what’s taking away from enjoying and appreciating is a malicious type of feeling or passion, then appealing to the happiness aspect of it functions to get me back to enjoying and appreciating. This is because I can see that me being malicious is not enjoying and appreciating.
Conversely if what’s taking away from feeling good is a sorrowful self-defeating self-abusing type of thing, then what works to get me out of it is to focus on the harmlessness aspect. I see that I’m not the only person in the world and that this not only negatively affects me,
it also negatively affects others as well as how I interact with them and the best I can do in the world, etc. That then makes the insight more receivable that it’s silly to feel sorrowful and sensible to get back to enjoying and appreciating.
The reason I go into all this detail is to explain that the entry point is not asymmetrical, of happiness first and harmlessness as an add-on. It is symmetrical. You can also start with harmlessness first and then happiness as the “free bonus”, as it were. Practically they’re both entry points into the same thing, which is that it is to describe two aspects of what is the closest to affective imitation to pure intent. Pure intent is just one thing, and it has the qualities of an intrinsic joy and appreciation of being alive, together with the benevolence that is a quality of this actually existing universe.
To further remove the “moralizing” aspect of tripping up what harmlessness is, consider the passage where Richard talks about happily harmlessly punching somebody when the situation calls for it (Selected Correspondence: Harmless).
Finally I’ll just add that, from personal experience, feeling harmless, in the way of using the word to properly refer to what it means in the context of actualism, feels really really good and is just wonderfully delightful. As such there’s no doubt as to exactly why now it promotes a more salubrious, ongoing and continuous enjoyment and appreciation of being alive.
Cheers
Claudiu