system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What does Camus mean when he says in The Myth Of Sisyphus: "Thus it is that no depth, no emotion, no passion and no sacrifice could render equal in the eyes of the absurd man (even if he wished it so) a conscious life of forty years and a lucidity spread over sixty years"?

My understanding of this general part of the essay is that Camus is reconciling the value of the "most living" with the absurd's negation of value judgements by stating that living is having lucidity of ones own revolt against the absurd so it isn't much of a contradictory value judgement in a meaningless universe.

But the above quote comes straight after this and I'm confused as to what it adds to the prior points. Is there a difference between consciousness and lucidity? If not, is it merely stating that a life with more lucidity is better? That would seem simple but I'm unsure.
gpt
Camus is pointing out the importance of being conscious of the absurd. It is this, not the quantity of experiences that is important. 

> Here we have to be over-simple. To two men living the same
number of years, the world always provides the same sum of
experiences. It is up to us to be conscious of them. 

Note especially that awareness is important, it is a way to maximize living for the absurd man.

> Being aware of
one’s life, one’s revolt, one’s freedom, and to the maximum, is
living, and to the maximum.

So it is not trying to cultivate many diverse experiences, or feel a variety of feels that is of fundamental importance (although these might be important, especially feeling!); It is the awareness of the absurd which allows life to be lived to the maximum.   Feeling though is still very important, and also being 'present in the moment'. But these are important only as a result of reasoning about the absurd, they follow from thinking about the absurd, they are not the 'starting point' if that makes sense. The absurd man lives life as a succession of presents, and values feeling. 

> [T]he
Greeks claimed that those who died young were beloved of the
gods. And that is true only if you are willing to believe that
entering the ridiculous world of the gods is forever losing the
purest of joys, which is feeling, and feeling on this earth. The
present and the succession of presents before a constantly
conscious soul is the ideal of the absurd man. But the word “ideal”
rings false in this connection. It is not even his vocation, but
merely the third consequence of his reasoning.