Yeah I was thinking something similar, it is interesting that the general information on happiness is understood and agreed by all but harmlessness seems a can of worms.
I know personally I have mostly focused on happiness primarily and I can see the pitfalls of this approach.
I can relate to this 
, and to the different outcome generated by combining happiness and harmlessness in those interactions.
I think, @Kiman, it’s worth trying if experiences like this that put into practice reflections like Peter’s on harmlessness, allow you to test if they are conducive to greater happiness. I’ve certainly experienced it that way.
The weakening of my sarcasm occurred in “phases”, which can be roughly demarcated as follows:
First it led me to diminish its expression -that is, to repress the sarcasm-
Then it led me to diminish its expression and repression -to observe the generation of the emotion and the resulting sarcastic thoughts, but without emitting or repressing them
Finally to diminish the generation itself.
Of course I am talking about a tendency, not an absence that can only exist in PCEs. I still experience all three “phases” at various levels and even emit sarcasms!
But certainly its weakening due to the intent to be innocuous/harmless has led me to be happier.
Even Richard mentioned its importance…he speaks about being virtually free after ending anger in 3 weeks…although what he means by “virtual freedom” here is not clear. Most likely he means still-in-control VF :
RICHARD : Speaking personally, the first thing I did in 1981 was to put an end to anger once and for all … then I was freed enough to live in virtual freedom.
Btw it isn’t that giving up harmfulness as a necessary step towards happiness isn’t recognized by other schools of thought…Buddhism is full of all this. For example, this quote from Dhammapada’s chapter on Anger :
Those sages who are harmless
And in body ever controlled
Go to the Everlasting State
Where gone they grieve no more.
So we can see the connection between harmless > grieve no more
So what is it that Peter is saying that is different here ? Methinks, that one way or the other, all other schools of thought try to deal with anger via its antidotes like love, kindness, compassion etc…while Actualism doesn’t
I find myself peeved with my coworker every day… probably not important 
I was following @henryyyyyyyyyy 's lead today and decided to lay down and really feel into the aggression I have towards myself. (Realising that I am this aggression isn’t my experience yet).
I was pondering “depth psychology” and a book by Peter Michaelson called “Why we suffer”, also a Facebook post which quoted Thomas Sowell saying how most truths are very simple, it’s complex because we don’t want to face truth.
Anyhoo, in depth psychology, the pre-conscious self , in it’s god-like solipsism, believes that any feelings it experiences are exactly what it wants to experience. Actualism would say it is those very feelings. Whether it’s “rejection” or any number of other distressing states.
It dawned on me that this is malicious.
The very action of self believing and being (whichever is the case) , such horrible things as “rejection” in what is otherwise a blameless baby, is the height of malice.
So, while I had to take a long route to get there, it is very clear to me now that it is not simply distress or even just aggression , but malice present in the newly formed addition to ‘humanity’.
In short, the very nature of ‘self’ is malicious.
I can work with this, as it’s clear then that finding and acting on those feelings which are also there , the feelings which somewhat ironically were naive enough to believe and be the very cause and effect of suffering, must move towards being naive enough to become harmless and happy. Both of which are miraculously also part of the self.
Which is to say, if it’s natural state is towards believing the ridiculous, then it hardly matters if it makes sense or not to be happy and harmless.
It of course makes sense, but it’s not a matter of talking oneself into it.
Just do it.
Fuck I’m lost
Haha, you had to be there! 
OK good I won’t strain too hard trying to make heads or tails of it then.
But it sounds like you came upon something worth going with. So good on you.
I could have another less convoluted go if you would like?
Please. For those on the outside looking in.
Ok. Perhaps starting at the conclusion is better than how it occurred to me;
The very fact that a ‘self’ can be/believe horrible things about itself/the body it’s in, makes a ‘self’ malicious.
It is functionally malicious.
It intends harm by itself. It is needlessly harmful. It’s natural state is to cause suffering/be suffering.
I would normally launch into a metaphor or simile, but nothing comes to mind. 
As far as why it’s like this, which is the primary objection I have always had, I have no clue.
Thank you for being concise. I see.
Now you also allude to depth psychology, which involves understanding unconscious psychological forces by interpreting various conscious and semi-conscious phenomena (dreams, patterns of speech or behavior, slips of tongue, idle doodlings, whatever). Were you able to discern the malicious nature of self (i.e., a basic and natavistic desire or intention to harm) through interpretation of conscious acts that reveal unconscious impulses?
Is it that the self is hurting itself because it wants to hurt itself? (Hence it’s malicious nature)
Or is it that the unconscious self is intentionally trying to hurt the conscious self?
I probably shouldn’t have mentioned that stuff, in that it wasn’t directly how I am realising this.
Ok, so as far as interpretation of conscience and semi-conscious phenomena;
I was expecting yesterday, before the psychedelic trip, that I would be enjoyably exploring something “deep”, a hidden fear, a long burried sadness. Something profound.
My intention was however to find out why I don’t have intimacy within myself, and it’s manifestation of rejection of myself and others.
This intention, it would seem, overrided my fluffy expectations and propelled me into the harshness of my own hatred, aggression, discontent, resentment.
Reflecting on this today, it is making sense that the experience of malice preceded the experience of sorrow. Not that it’s a hugely important point, or maybe it is, but I am getting the inkling why Peter’s approach worked.
Focusing of harmlessness before happiness removes the cause of sorrow.
That is, if I stop hitting myself with a hammer, I will have also automatically stopped feeling pain (eventually).
Ah, simile achieved; when one is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!
Because it’s evolutionarily advantageous to be malicious, including toward oneself
Keeping in mind that the instinctual suite was developed eons before more advanced thought
Oohh, interesting. You are actively hurting yourself, actively hating yourself, resenting yourself, etc., hence feeling the pain from that self harm. From those malicious acts. Naturally, if you stop harming yourself, you won’t be harmed by self-harm. Is that correct?
Yes, the very ‘thing’ I am as a self hurts itself and everything around it.
As to why? No idea. However, I was looking for an experience which would reveal greater intimacy.
What I am hugely encouraged by is of course the reports of others who have had success becoming harmless. I am happy for future generations to work out the “why it is so”.