That confused me as well. Which is why clear communication - explaining the terms you’re using and giving context - is crucial. Otherwise it just creates more confusion than it provides insight.  
if he’s saying fear is within thought and that love is of a higher order (i.e. meta to thought), then that I agree with. 
We’re not “focusing on fear”. That sounds like self-analysis. In whole observation there is no focus, because focus implies concentration/effort/volition, and these factors are the very movement of thought-self itself. We’re observing whatever may come, whether that be fear or otherwise. 

@Feel Good
I think you’re right, that your assessment (OP) is so accurate, that it is triggering reactions of the very things it addresses. 
Also, I think you’re too generous with handing out the turquoise, to the extent it feeds into the very issue your op is about. 
What surfaces to me from this thread, is the underestimation of shadow work - I’d go so far as to say if someone hasn’t done it, then they probably don’t know what it is, and have assumed they just don’t need it.... while not even knowing what it is. 
Overall though, I think the message here is that direct experience matters, and nothing else. Maya & ego are as clever as one is intelligent. A misunderstanding of what one experiences directly often arises too, and get’s so deep into one’s perspective that they don’t know they have faslity in their view, prohibiting their enlightenment. This gets zero attention on the forum. 
Each of us should contemplate - why am I talking about what I have not experienced for myself?
 It stands to reveal exactly what they need on their path.  It’s such a giant clue, it doesn’t get noticed. 
 

This helps to connect the dots for a holistic understanding of thought-self,(time), as all one unitary movement. 
Which is why we go into how fear, pleasure, desire, seeking psychologically, and as @robdl says memory, experience, and so on, are actually one unitary movement of time-thought as the i. 

thinking can't inherently transcend the "thinker", and thinking can't inherently see the whole thought-self loop (only unconditioned observation can), but thinking has some capacity to understand or at least get a sense of what some of the thought-traps are, and understand the nature of certain forms of thought (belief, knowledge, memory, and so on). So there is a starting point there, even though it's partial, limited understanding; non-holistic.

There comes a point where fear/self/desire/memory/time kind of merge into one and the same movement (of thought). It is seen that thought just seeks security in its own movement, self-perpetually, and an identity is conjured out of that movement. Well, the movement nourishes the identity and the identity nourishes the movement. The observer is the observed.

The insights are nondualistic. Language/thought is necessary afterward to approximate what it is to others.

Movements in thought, including motives, volition, will, desire, etc., are all movements from what-is, yes?  You feel bored, you get motivated to get stimulation.  You feel lonely, you get the volition for companionship, etc.   You feel unfulfilled, you seek enlightenment.  
It's all an escape from what-is, and this we can define as fear.    Thought seeking security in its own movement.  Right?
Thought-self (aka ego) is only interested in its self-perpetuation, which is reflected in this habitual, constant movement from what-is.
 

Hello @Victor Mgazi
Where there is an experience there will be anxiety-fear. 
Would you say that to experience nothing would imply no experiencer-experience?
 
For me, death of (experience, knowledge, memory) as the i, implies no fear, no anxiety, and obviously no experiencer-experience that is then continued or imprinted onto “the now” or “the happening” 
also, there is a constant process of death that takes place. Seems to have started as a daily phenomena, but then went to minutes or even seconds. So “I” (experience, knowledge, memory) as the i, am constantly dying, or that memory as the I is not continued over to the next moment. 
This is how I feel there are these extended periods of time where there is this total emptiness-nothingness of conciousness. Really seems to be no consciousness-thought at all. 
There is still thought when needed to do something, but when it is not needed thought remains dormant. So the I (experience, knowledge, memory) is not in movement anymore, just a movement of thought without identification. No registration, recollection, identification, and therefore no experience at all. To be headless. 
So to me the ending of that continued experience is this nothingness that is spoken of. But to me death is ongoing. We are perpetualy dying to the past (experience, knowledge, memory, as the i)...If not we get this sense of temporary death. Or partial death. Because then experience as the i continues to be accumulated as the i after. This is where passive awareness comes in. 
 
 

We can also observe the subtlety of fear in being detached “from” outcome, or something. 
As this implies reaction. Freedom from, when gone into very deeply, is not actual FREEDOM. As freedom is the absence of conditioned response , or (reaction), which then influences another action, and this becomes an endless pattern of incomplete action.This still remains a perpetual movement of fear-thought-ego reacting, and acting on behalf of that reaction. It then becomes a viscous cycle of cause-effect-cause-effect. 
Thought-ego will nourish its own movement as time by this never ending compulsion to act incompletely, or mechanically as a response(reaction-action).
 

The veil that blankets BE-ING 
 
 
 Are we aware that “the i” is a veil of conceptualizations, or the accumulated(experience, knowledge, memory), that responds to the now with that content-movement of the past??
 
 That being one and the same movement as “the i”, or “the knower-known”, that seeks security in time, which prevents actual timeless be-ing.
 
 All this being a movement of fear with the agenda of self preservation. To evade the fact to the abstraction in order to capture and maintain a sense of psychological security-psychological permanence. 
 
 Do we see that as long as there is this neurotic compulsion to adhere, and project, that which has been accumulated through the movement of thought, (experience, knowledge, memory), that in so doing, we are preventing actual present moment be-ing??
 
 Do we see that we meet the dynamic happening of “the now”, with that accumulation of the past,(thought as the i)??
 
 The alive and dynamic action of be-ing, is then blanketed with all that movement of the i, (memory), which projects itself in place of “what is” in accordance to its own static content of what should be. 
 
 In this movement of time as the i, there is then an interpretation of that static content, which influences the projection, which then follows an action in accordance to that projected image. 
 
 Again, that action is the response of an interpreted-projection, which is the response of memory, registering, recollecting from the past-thought. We then apply that finite veil of experience to meet the challenge of the infinite -active dynamic now. 
 
 In the actual “action of be-ing”, there is no choosing between the opposites. Actual be-ing implies the absence of choice as the chooser, who chooses between two opposing concepts, or any content-movement from the past whatsoever...Choosing, or deciding between, is one and the same movement as the past that acts according to the false notion, that ‘the chooser’ is different from that which it chooses. 
 
 This is an example of the dualistic nature of thinking, when “the thinker”, thinks, it is separate from that which it thinks. 
 
 Even, “present movement be-ing”, can be the product of conceptualization if this accumulated movement-contents, as the i, which is the past, meets the present active and elusive now. 
 
 In that, the active happening of now is then deduced by the deadness of the past, (memory), and (thought as the i), then becomes projected again as a future barrier to “the be-ingness of now” 
 
 Here I have utilized thought, (a conceptual expression), that points to a fact that is common to the conditioned consciousness of human kind. Pointing to the actuality that the psychological accumulation of “the i” distorts, and makes for this (deduction), that diminishes the beauty, joy, and creativity of the dynamic, aliveness, of now. 
 
 When we can observe without the observer, which is void of (experience, knowledge, memory), or time as the i, only then is there a timeless dynamic/stillness of be-ing. 
 
 This is what I have been exploring over the last  four months or so. How to explain this “ending of experience”, more efficiently....What it boils down to is the ending of experience in and of itself. Freedom to me, implies the absence of experience, or(measure), acting as a veil to that which is immeasurable. Experience has its place in practical affairs, but psychologically it has none.  
 
 When all psychological experience as the i ceases to be carried over onto the living movement of now, only then that which is mysterious, (THE SACRED), is actualized. This is what I would refer to as BE-ING, or consciousness empty of its conditioned movement-content of time as the i. Or what I refer to as headlessness. 
 
 As I have said before, to me, this is the most creative movement that can take place. This movement is not found within the realm of time. 
 
 Nor is this the invention of thought, but an actualized emptiness void of the conditioned nature of thought, consciousness empty of its contents-movement so that there can be communion with WHAT IS. 
 
 

Quite so...
As seeking of experiences, and the clinging-attachment to past experience, perpetuates thought-the experiencer. 

Thought is the known/knowledge, and therefore that is thought's sole interest.  Thought seeks security in the known, which is to say thought seeks security in its own movement. 
Knowledge perpetuates thought/the thinker.

The "bias" is the "you"; the "you" is the "bias."  They are one.  That may be what you meant, but the limitations of language divides them - separating "you" and "bias."  Bias isn't possessed by "you";  bias (i.e. memory/conditioning) is the "you."
Or to put it another way: things are observed to be negative (or positive) in thought because observation is taking place through the lens of the "you" --- the (conditioned, biased) accumulated experience/memory/knowledge/desire.     This (biased) lens directs/influences/corrupts the observation --- self-perpetuating thought-self in the process.