Could it be possible that it is OK to use personal pronouns and also stating facts relating to one's person, without identity view and without conceit?
Exactamundo. There is no problem using conventional language for enlightened persons. Not the slightest problem at all. The idea that absence of identity-view relegates one incapable of using personal pronouns is profoundly silly and indicates a major misunderstanding :)
Enlightened persons and you and I exist. We all exist. The doctrine of Anatta or Shunyata do not contradict this at all. Believing that they do is falling into nihilism and very silly. Don't make this mistake! The question is not whether we exist... the proper question is how we exist.
Enlightened beings use these personal pronouns in exactly the same manner and according to the same rules as ordinary beings: by worldly convention. This idea that the negation of identity-view necessarily negates the existence of persons is just wrong. It is a misunderstanding. Listen to the Buddha:
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is
the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not
dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world
agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of
that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say
that it exists.
If you look as the Sutta continues he elucidates what does not exist:
And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not
existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is
permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in
the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not
And he elucidates what does exist:
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as
existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent,
suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree
upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception …
Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering,
and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as
existing, and I too say that it exists.
What is the Buddha getting after here? He is talking about the coarse understanding of emptiness. That is that existing things are impermanent, non-unitary and utterly dependent. The doctrine of shunyata - both at its coarse level and its subtler levels like prasangika-madhyamaka - does not refute existence. Persons exist. Things exist. Entities exist.
Emptiness does not refute that things exist. It refutes that things exist permanently, unitarily, independently, substantially, in a self-sufficient manner, ... and most subtly, inherently.
Why is it so hard to understand this? Why do we always either undershoot and negate too little or overshoot and negate too much? Because most everything around us appears to exist permanently, unitarily, independently, substantially, and in a self-sufficient and inherent manner. It is hard for us to break through this apparent perception and see the reality underneath. We go from one extreme: believing in the appearance of true existence ... to the other extreme: believing that things don't exist at all! We are very foolish.
To understand how an enlightened being could use these pronouns without the slightest bit of identity view imagine a dream where you are completely aware you are dreaming. You look at your hand and you say, "This is my hand" and yet you have absolutely no doubt that this is not a real hand, but merely a dream conjuration. The appearance of your dream hand does not fool you at all. You acknowledge the existence of this dream hand, but have no doubt whatsoever that it is an illusion. For Arya beings I think every perception is like this.
In fact, that is how I conceive of what it might be like to have a direct perception of emptiness. To suddenly wake up in this very life - much like a sleeper wakes up in a lucid dream - and know without the slightest bit of doubt that my own hand is no more real than the hand that I once perceived in a lucid dream. To know that this very waking life is no more real than a lucid dream. Not that it is a dream mind you, but like a dream in the precise sense that neither is more real or less real than the other. Of course, that's probably just my romanticized notion of what the direct perception of emptiness is like. I'll let you know for sure when I experience it :)