I've been thinking about this recently... usually, it seems like when most practitioners talk about the use of a conventional language, they focus on the side of what is being spoken, but seem to neglect the other side... i.e., "conventional listening" vs. "ultimate listening."
I think that this is the kind of listening where a person does not see a "self" (or at least makes an attempt not to), along with not trying to see the "permanence," or the "perfect non-dukkha," in what's being said. I think that is "listening with wisdom."
I had a realization recently, that this sort of listening would apply even while listening to a non-practitioner... including even those not familiar with the Dhamma.
It seems like that when a person says something like, "I think that you're great," or "Your behavior sucks," while this might seem like the person had a view of the specific person, who embodied these qualities, that probably wasn't his/her intention in the first place.
From the point view of a listener (who has the wisdom), that person's intention was probably just to point out the bad or good qualities... i.e., to just point out the conditions which were seen as wholesome or unwholesome. It just happened that this speaker was framing these things as a "person," instead of using Dhammic terms... but that doesn't change the message.
So, it's not useful, or even wise, to tell that person (especially if he/she wasn't a practitioner) that he/she was just seeing a "self" that was never there... because that is very likely not the point of what this person was trying to say in the first place. I think listening in this way only makes things confusing or bothersome (i.e., dukkha), and probably a waste of everyone's time. This kind of comment of there being "no self," or "no person," I think is probably more of a reflection on the listener's wisdom, than the speaker's.
The speaker was merely sharing an observation of the conditions...
I'm pretty sure that with a person who listens with wisdom, things would be understood (and then get resolved) much quicker... because then this person sees the actual intention, whether the speaker knew how to frame them or not.
For example, if a speaker said that someone wasn't behaving in a way that he/she likes, then the person listening to that knows that there were conditions which were seen as unbeneficial. He doesn't become fixated on the usage of "someone," and then tries to attribute that fault to the person speaking, for having a delusion of self... (which actually, if you paid attention carefully, is more the listener's delusion, than speaker's.)
It seems like an interesting twist on the art of conventional language... using the point of view of a listener.