2) Blumer says that symbols are the basis of social life.
3) I don't pay any attention to Jung -- it's possibly a Freudian thing.

I quote Eco: "...I try to temper an eminently 'cultural' view of semiosic processes with the fact that, whatever the weight of our cultural systems, there is something in the continuum of experience that sets a limit on our interpretation, and so - if I weren't afraid of sounding pretentious - I would say that the dispute between internal realism and external realism would tend to compose itself in a notion of contractural realism.

I take from this that there is a set of basic symbols (Jung) that are universal, but that other symbols are malleable, and socially defined (Blumer). I also see the possibility of a dualism between cognitive communication and biological communication, as Desmond Morris has shown in people's breeding habits, as though what is thought may fly in the face of the biological requirements, often at odds, of breeding with the most healthy candidate and being supported by the most wealthy one. How often does the unconscious substrate of biological imperitive color what we project as communication to others?