In the name of transparency, we abandon the private sphere to such a degree that man is not even transparent to himself. In the face of the transparency demanded by today's society, one should exercise an attitude of distance. In the name of transparency, all discretion is eliminated; with this, we fall into an increasingly shameless and naked world. Under suspicion, transparency eliminates the other, the strange, and standardizes public opinion. We thus live in a culture of strategic games that seek single thought as a form of control and domination. This is a proposal to analyze how the society of transparency works, how it hides light and coexists with darkness, how thought tends to avoid change and pretends that there is a society on the path to equality, when we ourselves build control and surveillance in denial of the other. We fail to register negativity as a path to process change, because the narrative dominates the public space, without freedom and with the appearance of democratic progress. How many lies do we register daily? A single piece of knowledge can question and transform what already exists. Today, all political discourse is permeated by the demand for transparency. Curiously, the more transparency, the less trust, and there is more betting on surveillance and control societies. There is no negativity that drives change, and the world is privatized. How can we free ourselves from the yoke of appearances to enter reality? Imagination is based on play; that is, nothing is defined firmly or delimited clearly. They reinforce each other on social media and help explain why reality is not perceived, why freedom is extinguished with hyper-information, and how we can coexist being victims and actors at the same time of our own reality. The narrative gains ground and enters collectives that remain in their illusion. It addresses corruption and perverts freedom of expression. The narrative is narrow and exercises a selection: it only admits certain events and prevents the massification of the positive. The public space is a theatrical space, where facts are represented; things are not exposed. And the value of exposure is maximized with beauty, even through violent means, because the invisible does not exist. The society of transparency is the enemy of pleasure. That is why today the obscene manifests itself in a management that, for example, normalizes violence. Things do not disappear in darkness, but in excess of light. No presence or absence distances the narcissist from himself. The captives do not see the real world: they are represented a theater and they deliver themselves to the narration, to scenic illusions. It is a simultaneous divergence, because when listening to a word, not everyone thinks exactly the same. Communication that only consists of information acts mechanically. Today, the society of transparency is the society of information, of power, of domination, and of appearance. Violence grows, as does control and surveillance, unilaterally. Power is a strategic game, and around every deep spirit a mask grows as a protective layer. We need both truth and error as elements of our lives. Thus, things that are at the service of the cult: their existence is more important than their visibility. More than as equality, autonomy means to accept in the other that which we do not understand. Light and darkness belong to each other; good and evil coexist. Politicians are not measured by their actions, but by the publicity of their person. That is why transparency is not the world of the beautiful. The sublime goes further than the beautiful because it transcends imagination. However, transparency is a state of symmetry that aspires to banish asymmetric relationships. Man tends to exercise power, and there arise games in which the conduct of others is directed. How many recognize and accept them? The word acts with greater power when it is figuratively vested. We are victims and actors of our own destiny. Today we live with egos incapable of a common action. And we come to the conclusion that more information does not necessarily lead to better decisions. The end of secrets can lead to the end of politics. Transparency and control do not get along, because the latter degrades society, while transparency breaks the secrets in which power is concealed. These philosophical thoughts arise in a moment of reflection during Holy Week. It is not exposure its value; on the contrary, its simple existence is not insignificant. This affirms the philosopher Byung-Chul Han. Transparency works against every form of mask, against appearance.
