I would agree that knowledge is not universal. Knowledge is both cultural and personal. Cultural knowledge is the body of accumulated beliefs, ideologies, accepted wisdoms, accepted proofs contained within a culture. Each culture has its own "knowledge."

Knowledge is also personal -- the patterns of meaning or cognitive structures which we build in our own minds.

Yesterday, I was making a drug run for my mom. As I was waiting to be served, I saw a magazine on a rack. It was the Time Magazine Special Edition titled “The Animal Mind”. I’m really into animals and had heard a little about the present direction of research into mind and thought processes. So, I bought the issue. Theory of mind is referenced several times.

Theory of mind presumes that other animals (mammals and birds) have a mind. As far as the meaning for humans go each human can only intuit the existence of their own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another.

As originally defined, it gives people the capability to understand that mental states can be the cause of—and thus be used to explain and predict—the behavior of others. Being able to attribute mental states to others and understanding them as causes of behavior implies, in part, that one must be able to conceive of the mind as a "generator of representations".

The Theory of mind requires social and other experience over many years for its full development. Empathy is considered a related concept, meaning the recognition and understanding of the states of mind of others, including their beliefs, desires and particularly emotions.

Of course all of our knowledge isn't universal. The human study and definition of the laws of physics for example. Things often "defy the laws of physics" not because the laws are universal, ibut because they're "earthly."

Sounds like woo to me.

If I know how much money I have in my pocket but you don't, that wouldn't be universal knowledge would it. My point is that I don't understand the question.